AODA Alliance Makes Presentation to Select Committee of New Zealand Parliament on What is Needed in Strong Accessibility Legislation

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org

Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/aodaalliance

AODA Alliance Makes Presentation to Select Committee of New Zealand Parliament on What is Needed in Strong Accessibility Legislation

March 30, 2023

SUMMARY

Last month, the AODA Alliance had the extraordinary opportunity to offer our advice to the Parliament of New Zealand on how to design effective disability accessibility legislation.

Back in 2014, Blind Low Vision New Zealand (BLVNZ) reached out to the AODA Alliance. They wanted to launch a national campaign for a New Zealand disability accessibility law. They had searched around the world for ideas on how to do this via the internet, and decided to model their campaign on our Ontario campaign for the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We were humbled, flattered, and eager to help.

A grassroots coalition was established in New Zealand, now called the Access Matters campaign. It is based on the AODA Alliance. You can find it on Twitter at @AccessForAllNZ

That coalition has done an excellent job of developing a platform around which the disability community has rallied for what a New Zealand accessibility law should include. They aim to learn from what other countries (like Canada) have done well, and to do better in areas where we have fallen short.

BLVNZ brought AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky to New Zealand in 2017 and 2018 as a volunteer to do training and briefings for disability advocates, senior public servants and some MPs, including, in 2018, the minister responsible for disability issues. We have kept in touch, sharing ideas and taking part in online events in New Zealand.

Last year, the New Zealand Government introduced an Accessibility for New Zealanders bill into their Parliament. At the end of this Update, you can read the bill, preceded by the Government’s explanatory note. It is an extremely weak and disappointing bill. It merely creates an advisory committee on accessibility that has no power to make standards, investigate complaints or enforce any legal requirements.

The New Zealand Parliament’s Select Committee on Social Services and Community is now studying this bill and holding public hearings. The AODA Alliance has submitted two briefs on this bill, our original November 3, 2022 brief and our supplemental January 25, 2023 brief. Both of these are set out below.

BLVNZ again brought AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky to New Zealand last month. He met with politicians, spoke with disability advocacy leaders and shared strategies with leaders in the New Zealand legal community. There were four especially major highlights:

On February 21, 2023, the Access Matters campaign held a virtual forum for a group of MPs from each of the major parties, which they call the “Parliamentary Champions for Accessibility Legislation.” This committee is a brilliant idea. The Access Matters campaign asked AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky to be the main speaker at this event, to brief the politicians on what strong accessibility legislation needs to include.

On February 23, 2023, the Access Matters campaign held a public event in front of the New Zealand Parliament, where it presented MPs with a petition, calling for the bill to be strengthened, that was signed by over 14,000 New Zealanders. David Lepofsky was invited to be one of the speakers at this event. Below you can read a news article about the event, as well as a second article in which David Lepofsky was interviewed.

On February 27, 2023, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky made a formal presentation on the Accessibility for New Zealanders bill to the New Zealand Parliament’s Select Committee that was holding public hearings. You can watch that 15 minute presentation at https://youtu.be/Ri-auPpiFh8

On March 1, 2023, David Lepofsky got to meet one of New Zealand’s most senior political leaders, Sir Winston Peters, head of the New Zealand First party. The aim of this meeting was to get his party to commit to strengthening this bill if the Government does not do so.

The Access Matters campaign has done an incredible job leading this campaign. As a result, presenter after presenter at the public hearings united behind a single strong message, explaining how and why the bill needs to be strengthened. Access Matters has even unveiled an excellent theme song, written and sung by a teenager, which is now the anthem for their campaign.

New Zealand has an election this fall. This provides a great opportunity for the Access Matters campaign to press forward, even if New Zealand’s current majority government does not heed the united message that the disability community is presenting to the Select Committee public hearings.

We are delighted to do what we can to help disability accessibility advocates in Ontario, across Canada, and elsewhere. Our cause is the same. The obstacles we face are the same. The solutions are clear and obvious.

Below you can find:

The February 23, 2023 article in New Zealand’s leading online newspaper, The Stuff, reporting on an interview with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky.

The February 27, 2023 article in The Stuff reporting on the public hearings before the New Zealand Select Committee regarding the Accessibility for New Zealanders bill.

The AODA Alliance’s November 3, 2022 brief submitted to the New Zealand Parliament’s Select Committee on Social Services and Community.

The AODA Alliance’s January 25, 2023 supplemental brief submitted to the New Zealand Parliament’s Select Committee on Social Services and Community, and

The explanatory note for the Accessibility for New Zealanders bill, followed by the text of the bill itself.

We always welcome your feedback. Write us at aodafeedback@gmail.com

MORE DETAILS

Stuff.co.nz February 23, 2023

Originally posted at https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/131298321/exceedingly-weak-petition-to-strengthen-accessibility-legislation-delivered-to-parliament

‘Exceedingly weak’: Petition to strengthen accessibility legislation delivered to Parliament

Olivia Shivas

Juliana Carvalho is lead campaigner for Access Matters Aotearoa. (Image description: Juliana is a wheelchair user and speaks into a microphone. There are balloons beside her and a sign reading ‘Give the Accessibility Bill some teeth’.)

A bill going before Parliament which aims to make Aotearoa more accessible has been described as “exceedingly weak” by an international disability advocate.

Canadian David Lepofsky has travelled to in New Zealand for the handover of a petition calling on the Government to strengthen the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill.

The petition has more than 14,500 signatures and insists that accessibility legislation includes standards, a regulator, a barrier notification system and a dispute resolution process to remove access barriers.

In its current state, should the bill be passed into law, an accessibility committee made up of mostly disabled people would be established.

A petition with almost 15,000 signatures has been delivered to Parliament, calling for the legislation to be strengthened.

The committee’s role would be to identify accessibility barriers and provide advice to the Minister for Disability Issues and the chief executive of Whaikaha – Ministry of Disabled People, who would then assist with the development of the recommendations.

Lepofsky is blind and has been involved with disability advocacy for more than 40 years. He is the chairperson of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance and led the coalition to get the first comprehensive disability act passed in Canada.

Canadian disability advocate David Lepofsky has travelled to New Zealand for the handover of a petition calling on the Government to strengthen the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill. (Image description: A white male wearing a blue shirt sits at a sunny café table.)

He acknowledges that effectively implementing any form of accessibility legislation involves “a lot of uphill battles”, but the state of New Zealand’s proposed accessibility legislation is “exceedingly weak” and “far less than what people with disabilities need”.

“They basically took three years or more to decide to create an advisory committee,” Lepofsky said. “You don’t need legislation to create an advisory committee.”

He said the Government needs to enact enforceable accessibility standards on a sector by sector basis that provide barrier-free education, transportation and employment so organisations know what to do.

“The government shouldn’t just pull these regulations out of their ear,” Lepofsky said. “They should develop them through a consultative process with people with disabilities and obligated organisations at the same table, figuring out what’s needed.”

Despite their laws, Canada was not a “nirvana for accessibility”, Lepofsky said. “We have lots of problems”.

But with accessibility legislation there had been progress.

“Certainly we’re better off than before,” he said. “There’s ample room for New Zealanders to be proud of coming up with something that’s even stronger and more effective than what the rest of us have done.”

As a blind person, Lepofsky requires accessibility to navigate websites. The sites he needs to access for work are fully accessible, which wouldn’t have happened without the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, he said.

Accessibility bill lambasted

Aine Kelly-Costello says the accessibility bill is “infuriating”.

He said there were ways to implement accessibility that is clever, creative and cost-effective.

“But it isn’t appointing an advisory committee,” he said.

He said disabled people shouldn’t carry the burden of enforcing accessibility legislation – “once it’s the law, it should be enforced”.

“It’s not that the government is short of advice on what to do. It’s a question whether the government will do it.”

Juliana Carvalho is lead campaigner for Access Matters Aotearoa and officially presented the petition to Green MP Jan Logie at Parliament on Wednesday.

Carvalho, a wheelchair-user who has been campaigning for better accessibility for six years, said she was tired but happy.

While being interviewed by Stuff after the petition handover, she was waiting for transport, but there weren’t any wheelchair-accessible taxis available in Wellington which clearly illustrated why accessibility needed to improve, she said.

A crowd gathers outside Parliament for the handover of a petition to strengthen accessibility legislation. (Image description: A crowd of around 50 people, including wheelchair users and people holding canes, gather outside Parliament with yellow balloons and signs.)

“But we got our message across pretty strongly,” Carvalho said.

She said she hopes politicians who want to serve the community listen to their voices.

“We need accessibility legislation with enforceable standards that will really create change and remove the barriers and also stop creating new barriers that hinder our participation aspects of life,” she said.

“Disabled people are not second-class citizens and we’re going to keep pushing to claim our rights until we feel we are being treated with the respect and dignity we deserve.”

Canadian advocate Lepofsky said disabled people are in every part of society.

“No politician can ultimately succeed by disregarding the most basic needs and rights of the minority of everyone,” he said.

When then Minister for Disability Issues Poto Williams introduced the bill to the House in August 2022, she said the bill would strengthen accountability across government and build knowledge and awareness of the importance of addressing accessibility barriers and growing accessibility practices.

And although she acknowledged the proposed legislation did not have a regulatory focus, as some disability advocates had called for, it would help shape new or amend existing regulations to improve the lives of disabled people.

Stuff.co.NZ February 27, 2023

Originally posted at https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131345438/how-long-must-we-wait-disabled-people-want-stronger-accessibility-legislation

‘How long must we wait?’ Disabled people want stronger accessibility legislation

Olivia Shivas

Aine Kelly-Costello says the accessibility bill is “infuriating”.

Disabled people want stronger accessibility legislation in Aotearoa, a parliamentary select committee has heard.

Stories of discrimination and exclusion were shared with the Social Services and Community Select Committee by submitters who were giving feedback on

the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill.

In its current state, should the bill be passed into law, an accessibility committee made up of mostly disabled people would be established.

One of the submitters, Mary Schnackenberg, said she opposed the bill in its current form.

As a blind person, she shared an example of going to a Human Rights Commission mediation with Auckland Transport regarding making bus trips more accessible.

Amy Hogan, co-chair of Access Matters Aotearoa Trust, said access was “beyond simply putting in a ramp on the side of a building”.

Yet six years later, she still can’t flag down the bus she wants to catch because there are not enough announcements across the entire bus network.

“How long must we wait?” She asked the select committee members.

In her submission, she suggested penalties for private and public entities that continue with accessibility discrimination.

Amy Hogan, co-chair of Access Matters Aotearoa Trust, said access was “beyond simply putting in a ramp on the side of a building”.

She emphasised that the legislation shouldn’t shut down small businesses for not having access.

Instead, the bill should be a starting point to make “access three-dimensional and meaningful” for current and future disabled people, Hogan said.

Prakashni Prakash, who is Deaf and has cerebral palsy, made her submission in New Zealand Sign Language. She told the committee life was “difficult” for her and her family without the right access and support.

“The system I require is quite different from the rest of the Deaf community,” she told the committee.

In her submission for the UpsideDowns Education Trust, the organisation’s former chief executive Sarah Paterson-Hamlin said people with learning and intellectual disabilities should not be forgotten about in this legislation. The organisation provides speech and language therapy for children with Down syndrome.

She acknowledged that while the bill does include whānau voices in the legislation and aims to prevent barriers, she said there was a lack of cognitive support and families “feel left in the cold”. She said there needed to be a mechanism to better provide information for people with learning and intellectual disabilities.

Based on the recent weather events around the country,

she said people with learning disabilities were not able to access the right information.

A petition was presented to Parliament calling on the Government to strengthen the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill last week, February 22.

Geraldine Lewis, in her submission with Auckland Disability Law, said the bill should be rewritten and co-designed with disabled people based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In its current form, the bill is at risk of making the situation worse for disabled people because access issues would “bottleneck” for the accessibility committee to address. And because the committee doesn’t have powers to resolve the issues, matters would take much longer to progress. If a committee were to be formed, it needed to have greater power and independence, with appropriate funding, otherwise it would be “tokenism”.

“It’s better we get this right now, when we’ve got the chance to, rather than waiting for a review,” Lewis said.

Last week, a petition was presented to members of the Social Services and Community Committee, calling on the Government to strengthen the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill.

The petition insisted that accessibility legislation included standards, a regulator, a barrier notification system and a dispute resolution process to remove access barriers.

The select committee would continue hearing from submitters on Tuesday.

November 3, 2022 Brief to the New Zealand Parliament Select Committee on Social Services and Community by the AODA Alliance

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org

Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

Social Services and Community Select Committee

Parliament Buildings

Wellington

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Submission on the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill

The AODA Alliance welcomes the opportunity to submit on the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill.

Who Are We?

The AODA Alliance has extensive experience with the design, implementation and enforcement of accessibility legislation in Canada. Founded in 2005, we are a voluntary, non-partisan grassroots coalition of individuals and community organizations. Our mission is:

“To contribute to the achievement of a barrier-free Ontario for all persons with disabilities, by promoting and supporting the timely, effective, and comprehensive implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.”

To learn about us, visit our open filing cabinet at https://www.aodaalliance.org.

Our coalition is the successor to the non-partisan grassroots Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. The ODA Committee advocated for more than ten years, from 1994 to 2005, for the enactment of strong, effective disability accessibility legislation. Our coalition builds on the ODA Committee’s work. To learn about the ODA Committee’s history, visit: http://www.odacommittee.net.

Beyond our years of work at the provincial level in Ontario, over the past seven years, the AODA Alliance has also been active, advocating for strong and effective national accessibility legislation for Canada, and assisting the New Zealand Access Matters campaign for strong and effective accessibility legislation.

Canada’s Federal Government and some federal opposition parties consulted the AODA Alliance on this issue. In 2016, AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky published a public Discussion Paper on what federal accessibility legislation should include. That widely-read Discussion Paper is now published in the National Journal of Constitutional Law at (2018) NJCL 169-207. Its contents can provide a great deal of guidance to New Zealand, even though it was written to address Canada’s federal legislative sphere. You can download our Discussion Paper on what the promised national accessibility law should include by visiting https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/click-here-to-download-the-discussion-paper-on-what-canadas-promised-accessibility-legislation-should-include-as-published-last-year-in-the-national-journal-of-constitutional-law/

We made formal presentations on Bill C-81, the proposed Accessible Canada Act, to both Canada’s House of Commons and Senate. Our recommendations helped lead to improvements to the Accessible Canada Act. Both the Government of Canada and opposition parties referred to the AODA Alliance and its proposals during parliamentary debates over that legislation.

The AODA Alliance has spoken to or been consulted by disability organizations, individuals, and governments from various parts of Canada on the topic of designing and implementing provincial accessibility legislation. For example, we have been consulted by the Government of Manitoba and by Barrier-Free Manitoba (a leading grassroots accessibility advocacy coalition in Manitoba) in the design and implementation of the Accessibility for Manitobans Act 2013. We twice made deputations to a Committee of the Manitoba Legislature on the design of that legislation. We have been consulted by the British Columbia Government on whether to create a BC Disabilities Act, and by Barrier-Free BC in its grassroots advocacy for that legislation. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was the keynote speaker at the October 28, 2015 meeting in Vancouver where Barrier-Free BC was established and the organized movement for BC’s accessibility legislation was born.

We have been consulted outside Canada on this topic, most particularly, in Israel and New Zealand. In addition, in June 2016, we presented on this topic at the UN annual international conference of state parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Executive Summary

The AODA Alliance supports the need for strong legislation to address the accessibility barriers that prevent people with disabilities, tāngata whaikaha and their whānau, and others with accessibility needs from living independently, and which aims to grow accessibility practices in New Zealand.

The AODA Alliance believes that New Zealand should be a place where every person, regardless of their disability, should be able to fully participate in a society that recognizes and provides for their access needs. We believe it is not only possible, but essential, that New Zealand is fully accessible by 2035, and welcome the introduction of legislation to enable this. However, this bill needs to be substantially strengthened to be effective.

The AODA Alliance would like to be heard by the Committee on this submission. We are able to facilitate this in-person. We ask that the Social Services and Community Select Committee contact Dianne Rogers on drogers@blindlowvision.org.nz or 0278082746. Ms. Rogers will liaise with AODA Alliance chair David Lepofsky. Mr. Lepofsky requires enough notice to be able to travel to New Zealand to make his oral submission to the Select Committee.

We congratulate Access Matters Aotearoa’s for their impressive and tireless grassroots efforts over the last five years that have led to this important development. The AODA Alliance is proud to have played a small part in the launch of the grassroots movement that has brought New Zealand to this point. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky had the privilege of travelling to New Zealand a month before the 2017 General Election to be a keynote speaker at a meeting of grass roots advocates in Auckland, and at other events around the country. He visited again in 2018 to support campaign efforts, including meeting with the minister responsible for this issue.

Areas of Support

We heartily commend the New Zealand Government for committing to bringing forward a national disability accessibility law. However, this submission shows that the New Zealand bill is missing essential ingredients. Unless very substantially strengthened in accordance with our recommendations, it will run into serious problems. It is far, far weaker than accessibility laws passed in several Canadian provinces and at the federal level. New Zealand’s bill is far weaker than those laws.

Below we propose practical suggestions to make the New Zealand bill effective. What is needed is both clear and readily doable. We want to help New Zealand learn from the accomplishments and the problems experienced with Canadian legislation. New Zealand has the chance to lead Canada by coming up with the best accessibility law developed to date. The Appendix at the end of this submission lists our recommendations in one place.

In addition to the specific recommendations below, we ask the New Zealand Government to read the AODA Alliance’s September 27, 2018 brief to Parliament on Bill C-81, the proposed Accessible Canada Act. It is among the most extensive analysis of that bill at First Reading. Some of our recommendations were eventually incorporated into the Accessible Canada Act. They were also incorporated into amendments which the opposition federal NDP and Conservatives tried to get the Federal Government to agree to as amendments to the bill. However, the analysis is almost entirely applicable to the context that the New Zealand Government will be addressing. You can download the September 27, 2018 AODA Alliance brief to Parliament on Bill C-81 by visiting https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/click-here-to-download-in-ms-word-format-the-aoda-alliances-finalized-september-27-2018-brief-to-the-parliament-of-canada-requesting-amendments-to-bill-c-81-the-proposed-bill-c-81/

Our Recommendations

Purpose of the New Zealand Legislation

The bill sets out this purpose:

“3 Purpose 5 (1) The purpose of this Act is to accelerate progress towards a fully accessible

New Zealand where disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or

whānau, and others with accessibility needs have an equal opportunity to achieve their goals and aspirations.”

This is far too weak. Merely accelerating progress is achieved if progress goes from extremely slow to just a tiny bit faster. People with disabilities in New Zealand deserve better.

It is very important to substantially strengthen the proposed purposes for the New Zealand disabilities legislation. We have learned that the goal must be the achievement of an accessible or barrier-free society, or both, pure and simple. Nothing short of that will do.

We have also learned that an end date must be set in the legislation. Ontario’s AODA has both the goal of accessibility and nothing less, and an end date. These are real strengths in that legislation. The Accessible Canada Act has both the goal of a barrier-free Canada and an end date. We and others fought long and hard to get this goal enshrined in the Accessible Canada Act. The Senate added the end date of 2040 to Bill C-81 in May of 2019. At the last minute, when Bill C-81 came back to the House of Commons in June 2019, on the eve of its rising for the 2019 federal election, the Federal Government finally withdrew its objection to enshrining an end date for accessibility in the bill.

We therefore recommend that:

#1. The New Zealand accessibility law should have the purpose of achieving a barrier-free and accessible New Zealand by an end date to be set in the legislation, using the definitions of “disability” and “barrier” proposed in the AODA Alliance’s Discussion Paper on national accessibility legislation.

Bill Only Mandates the Creation of an Advisory Committee with No Binding Powers

This bill only requires that the Government create an advisory committee. This advisory committee would only make recommendations and offer reports on progress regarding accessibility. This is among the weakest examples of disability legislation we have ever seen. We recommend that it be substantially strengthened. The bill does not require any disability barrier anywhere in the country to ever be removed or prevented, no matter how easy it is to do and how little it costs to do it. Moreover, legislation is not needed to create an advisory committee. The Government could have appointed one years ago.

Making this worse, the bill provides that it might not come in force for another year and a half. That means that the mere appointment of an advisory committee could be pushed back that long.

We therefore recommend that:

#2. The bill be amended to require the prevention of new disability barriers and the removal of existing barriers along reasonable timelines, with a comprehensive regime being established to ensure effective implementation and compliance.

Nothing in the Bill Should Ever Reduce the Rights of People with Disabilities

It is important that nothing be done under the New Zealand accessibility law that reduces the rights or opportunities of people with disabilities. We have feared that some have used the Accessible Canada Act to cut back on our rights.

We therefore recommend that:

#3. The bill should be amended to provide that nothing in the New Zealand disability accessibility law, or in its regulations or in any actions taken under it should be able to reduce in any way any rights which people with disabilities enjoy under law.

Several laws address aspects of human rights for people with disabilities. A New Zealand accessibility law and regulations enacted under it are needed to proactively remove barriers and reduce disabling experiences.

There is no assurance that this law will remove barriers and reduce disabling experiences. The New Zealand accessibility law should ensure that the law which provides the greatest amount of accessibility should always prevail. Section 38 of the AODA is instructive. It commendably provides:

” 38. If a provision of this Act, of an accessibility standard or of any other regulation conflicts with a provision of any other Act or regulation, the provision that provides the highest level of accessibility for persons with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, employment, accommodation, buildings, structures or premises shall prevail.”

We therefore recommend that:

#4. If a provision of the New Zealand accessibility law or of a regulation enacted under it conflicts with or sets a different accessibility standard than a provision of any other Act or regulation, the provision that provides the highest level of accessibility for persons with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, employment, accommodation, buildings, structures or premises should prevail.

Setting Mandatory Timelines for Enacting Accessibility Regulations

The legislation should require the government to enact mandatory enforceable accessibility standards. These would specify in detail what obligated organizations must do to become accessible to people with disabilities.

It is essential that the law impose a clear and strong duty on the Government to create standards, and for it to set enforceable timelines for creating these standards. Otherwise, they may never be created, or they may take excessive amounts of time to be created.

Extensive experience shows that is insufficient to merely give a Government the power to enact accessibility standards or regulations, without requiring that Government to ever do so and without setting deadlines. We know from experience under Ontario’s accessibility legislation, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, that this can take a long time just to get started.

The Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 permitted the Ontario Government to enact accessibility standards, but that Government never enacted any under that legislation. That in part is why Ontario later enacted the stronger AODA.

One of the major criticisms of the Accessible Canada Act is that it gives the Federal Government a number of helpful powers, such as the power to enact accessibility regulations, but for the most part does not require that these powers be used. It also does not for the most part set timelines for their deployment. That is why we and so many others said that the Accessible Canada Act is strong on good intentions but weak on implementation.

We therefore recommend that:

#5. The New Zealand accessibility law should require the Government to create all the accessibility standards as enforceable regulations that are needed to achieve the law’s goal, and should set timelines for enacting these regulations.

Governance, Compliance and Enforcement

New Zealand should adopt the recommendations for governance, compliance and enforcement that are set out in our published Discussion Paper on what a national accessibility law should include, and our September 27, 2018 brief to Parliament on Bill C-81, both referred to above.

The New Zealand Framework for its accessibility strategy considers as a possible feature of its implementation/enforcement regime the following:

“Reduced reporting requirements for individuals and organizations that show accessibility leadership.”

We disagree. It is of course commendable for an obligated organization to show leadership on accessibility. However, that should not lead to any reduction in that organization’s reporting obligations. Just because an organization has done well on accessibility in the past does not mean that it will continue to do so in the future and need only have reduced accountability. Reporting requirements are always needed to help monitor and drive compliance.

We therefore recommend that:

#6. The New Zealand accessibility law should include the compliance, monitoring and enforcement features recommended in the AODA Alliance Discussion Paper on national accessibility legislation, and in its September 27, 2018 brief to Parliament on Bill C-81.

#7. The New Zealand accessibility law should not provide for reduced reporting requirements for an obligated organization that has shown leadership on accessibility.

How Often Should There Be an Independent Review of New Zealand’s Accessibility Law’s Implementation?

It is good that the New Zealand bill requires a periodic Independent Review of the bill. However, the timelines are too long. The bill delays the first Independent Review until five years after that part of the bill comes into force. Subsequent Independent Reviews are to be held on five-year intervals.

These Independent Reviews have been very important in Ontario. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act required the first Independent Review to begin three years after the AODA was passed. It requires each successive Independent Review to be appointed four years after the previous one was completed. Each Independent Review takes one year to conduct, once appointed. Nothing shorter would be appropriate.

The recommendations from each of the three AODA Independent Reviews came at important times. It would have been harmful to Ontarians with disabilities had they been delayed any longer. We only regret that the Ontario Government has not acted promptly on those reports’ helpful findings and recommendations.

In contrast, Canada’s Federal Government set too long a period in the Accessible Canada Act, over our strong objection. The first Independent Review won’t begin under federal legislation until almost twice as long a period as was the case in Ontario. That will work to the substantial disadvantage of people with disabilities across Canada. This is especially troubling since under the Accessible Canada Act, the Federal Government need not create any enforceable accessibility standard regulations in that period.

We therefore recommend that:

#8. The New Zealand accessibility law should require the first Independent Review of that legislation to be appointed within three years after that law goes into effect, and thereafter, every four years after the previous Independent Review delivered its report.

Key Features Needed in the New Zealand Accessibility Law that the New Zealand Bill Does Not Identify

There are additional features that are very important for an accessibility law to be strong and effective. They are discussed in greater length in our Discussion Paper on national accessibility legislation, and in our September 27, 2018 brief to Parliament on Bill C-81.

We therefore recommend that:

#9. The New Zealand accessibility law should

a) Specify that the New Zealand Government as a whole is responsible for leading New Zealand to the goal of accessibility.

b) Impose specific duties and implementation timelines on the New Zealand Government, and on specified public officials and agencies, regarding their roles to implement and enforce the law.

c) Require the New Zealand Government to review all its statutes and regulations for accessibility barriers.

d) Enforceably require that no public money can be used to create or perpetuate barriers against people with disabilities, e.g. money spent on procurement, infrastructure, grants, loans or transfer payments.

e) Require the New Zealand Government to use all other readily-available levers of power to advance the goal of accessibility.

f) Require that whenever a New Zealand statute or regulation confers a discretionary power on any federal public official, department or agency, that decision-maker shall take into account, in its exercise, its impact on accessibility for people with disabilities.

g) Require the New Zealand Government to ensure that national and municipal elections become barrier-free for voters and candidates with disabilities.

h) Include effective measures to ensure that the New Zealand Government becomes a model accessible workplace and service-provider.

i) Require the New Zealand Government to develop and implement a plan to ensure that all courts and regulatory tribunals become accessible.

We especially focus on one of these needed additions. The New Zealand Government can bring about significant progress towards accessibility by making sure that no one uses public money to create, perpetuate or exacerbate disability barriers. Many in society want to receive public money, as venders, infrastructure builders, businesses, colleges, universities, hospitals, and governmental transfer partners. The law should attach clear monitored, enforced and mandatory accessibility strings to that money. Anyone accepting those funds should be bound by the strings attached.

Central and Local Government spending should be subject to this requirement, for example:

a) spending on procuring goods, services and facilities, for use by the New Zealand Public Service and the public.

b) New Zealand spending on capital and infrastructure projects, including projects built by the New Zealand Government or others.

c) New Zealand spending on business development grants and loans, and on research grants for universities and other organizations.

d) New Zealand transfer payments to transfer agencies for programs, like health care.

e) Any other New Zealand Government contract.

This spending would give the New Zealand Government substantial leverage to promote accessibility. Widely-viewed AODA Alliance online videos have demonstrated that new construction, including construction on infrastructure using public money, have included serious accessibility problems. These videos secured significant media coverage. See:

The AODA Alliance’s May 2018 video showing serious accessibility problems at new and recently renovated Toronto area public transit stations.

The AODA Alliance’s October 2017 video showing serious accessibility problems at the new Ryerson University Student Learning Centre.

The AODA Alliance’s November 2016 video, showing serious accessibility problems at the new Centennial College Culinary arts Centre.

The Ontario experience shows that this must be specifically legislated, monitored and enforced. The Ontario Government has missed out on huge opportunities to generate greater accessibility.

Canada’s Federal Government has similarly missed out on a huge opportunity here. It declined to include the needed measures to address this in the Accessible Canada Act. The Accessible Canada Act allows the Government to make accessibility standards in the area of procurement, but does not require these to be made. It does not mandate standards regarding accessibility of publicly-funded infrastructure.

In 2019, Canada’s Senate made a formal “observation” on Bill C-81 when it passed other amendments to strengthen the bill. It called for federal action to ensure that federal public money is not used to create disability barriers.

Don’t Make the Same Mistakes in the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill

We commended the New Zealand Government for committing to national accessibility legislation. Learn from Canada’s successes and our mistakes. We welcome the opportunity to help New Zealand get it right.

Appendix – List of Recommendations

#2. The bill be amended to require the prevention of new disability barriers and the removal of existing barriers along reasonable time lines, with a comprehensive regime being established to ensure effective implementation and compliance.

#7. The New Zealand accessibility law should not provide for reduced reporting requirements for an obligated organization that has shown leadership on accessibility.

#9. The New Zealand accessibility law should

a) Specify that the New Zealand Government as a whole is responsible for leading New Zealand to the goal of accessibility.

b) Impose specific duties and implementation timelines on the New Zealand Government, and on specified public officials and agencies, regarding their roles to implement and enforce the law.

c) Require the New Zealand Government to review all its statutes and regulations for accessibility barriers.

d) Enforceably require that no public money can be used to create or perpetuate barriers against people with disabilities, e.g. money spent on procurement, infrastructure, grants, loans or transfer payments.

e) Require the New Zealand Government to use all other readily-available levers of power to advance the goal of accessibility.

f) Require that whenever a New Zealand statute or regulation confers a discretionary power on any federal public official, department or agency, that decision-maker shall take into account, in its exercise, its impact on accessibility for people with disabilities.

g) Require the New Zealand Government to ensure that national and municipal elections become barrier-free for voters and candidates with disabilities.

h) Include effective measures to ensure that the New Zealand Government becomes a model accessible workplace and service-provider.

i) Require the New Zealand Government to develop and implement a plan to ensure that all courts and regulatory tribunals become accessible.

January 25, 2023 Supplemental Brief to the New Zealand Parliament Select Committee on Social Services and Community by the AODA Alliance

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org

Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

Social Services and Community Select Committee

Parliament Buildings

Wellington

Supplemental Submission on the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill – Why the Bill Needs to Mandate the Creation of Enforceable Accessibility Standards

January 19, 2023

1. Introduction

At present, the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill (the Bill) before Parliament does not require the creation and enforcement of any accessibility standards. This is a major omission. Experience from other jurisdictions overwhelmingly shows that to be effective, a disability accessibility law needs to mandate the creation and enforcement of mandatory accessibility standards.

The creation and enforcement of mandatory accessibility standards is an absolutely indispensable centerpiece of disability accessibility legislation in Canada at the federal and provincial levels (such as the Accessible Canada Act and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act), and elsewhere such as in the US and Israel.

The Bill should require the Government to create all the accessibility standards as enforceable regulations that are needed to achieve the law’s goal, and should set timelines for enacting these regulations.

The AODA Alliance has a great deal of experience working with accessibility standards. For example, we have given input into the content of several accessibility standards in Ontario., AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky served as a member of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, which wrote an extensive report on what needs to be included in an Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

2. What is an “Accessibility Standard”?

An accessibility standard is an enforceable regulation. It spells out in detail the actions obligated organizations must take to become accessible to people with disabilities and the time lines for these actions to be completed. It identifies the recurring barriers that must be removed and prevented. Depending on how it is designed, it can identify the specific measures needed to remove them, or the end results that must be achieved.

For example, an example of a specific action to be taken that an accessibility standard might set is a precise measurement of how wide an aisle needs to be so that people with disabilities can safely travel in it. In contrast, an illustration of an “end result” that an,accessibility might establish is a requirement that an electronic self-serve kiosk must provide audible spoken word output of any information displayed to a customer on the screen, without detailing how that spoken word information is to be made available.

Accessibility standards can be created for different sectors of the economy. Each could address the distinctive disability barriers that exist in those sectors.

The following are examples of this:

A Customer Service Accessibility Standard
An Education Accessibility Standard
A Transportation Accessibility Standard
A Health Care Accessibility Standard
A Residential Housing Accessibility Standard

As well, separate accessibility standards can also be enacted to address recurring disability barriers in recurring areas or activities that cut across many sectors of the economy, such as:

An Employment Accessibility Standard
A Built Environment Accessibility Standard
An Information and Communication Accessibility Standard.

3. Why Accessibility Standards are So Beneficial to New Zealand

There are several important advantages to creating enforceable accessibility standards.

a) Benefits for Obligated Organizations

For obligated organizations, accessibility standards give clear direction on what they need to do to become accessible to people with disabilities. Obligated organizations want to know what they have to do. We have heard the following message from any number of businesses and public sector managers: “Tell us what we need to do, and we will do it!”

General vague anti-discrimination laws are only helpful to a point. They tell organizations not to discriminate because of disability. They tell them that they have a duty to accommodate people with disabilities. However those general legal requirements don’t let an obligated organization know how high a service counter should be in order to be accessible. They don’t let them know that a PDF formatted document creates accessibility barriers for blind computer users, or what to use to ensure document accessibility. They don’t alert public transit operators that they need to audibly announce each route stop. They don’t let a hotel operator know that a Braille and raised large print room number should be posted on or beside each hotel room’s door.

An effectively-written accessibility standard provides the clear directions to obligated organizations that they need and that an important but vague general ban on disability discrimination does not. Effective accessibility standards save obligated organizations money on compliance. Each obligated organization don’t need to each reinvent the accessibility wheel. They can avert the need for each obligated organization to hire consultants to give the same directions to one organization after the next.

Effectively-written accessibility standards help obligated organizations know when they are in compliance. If they are clearly written, then they save obligated organizations the cost of having to retain lawyers to advise them on what the law requires them to do.

By providing time lines for completing specific actions, an effective accessibility standard can help obligated organizations plan for orderly progress on accessibility, knowing what they must achieve first.

Because they are mandatory, accessibility standards also promote fairness among obligated organizations. If they are simply published as unenforceable voluntary guidelines, nothing would require an obligated organization to comply with them. An organization can feel: “Why should I comply with this if my competitors do not have to do so?”

Accessibility standards do not need to be “one size fits all”. They can, for example, set different time lines for different obligated organizations depending on whether they are in the public or private sector, or depending on whether they are large or small. In this way, they can be tailored to the capacity of obligated organizations.

When done properly, accessibility standards can and should increase the profitability of for-profit organizations and the mission success of non-profit organizations. They will serve more customers and will have access to a broader pool of employees.

b) Helping People with Disabilities

Effectively-written accessibility standards can provide a tremendous help for people with disabilities. By making it easier for obligated organizations to comply, people with disabilities can experience a quicker path to achieving accessibility.

An effective accessibility standard lets people with disabilities know what specific corrective actions they are entitled to expect from obligated organizations, and when they are entitled to expect them. If an organization has not taken a specific corrective action that an accessibility standard requires of them, people with disabilities can quickly and easily point them to the accessibility standard, and to the specific requirements that it sets.

c) Helpful for Effective Enforcement

An effectively-written accessibility standard makes it much easier for a public authority to enforce inclusion and accessibility. For example, if an accessibility standard sets the required height for an accessible public service counter, all that is needed to measure compliance is 2 minutes on site with a tape measure. The clearer be the accessibility standard, the easier it will be for all concerned, including enforcement officials, to assess whether an obligated organization is in violation or in compliance.

The quicker and easier it is to enforce an accessibility requirement, the greater is the motivation for obligated organizations to comply.

d) Making It Easier to Gauge the Need for More Action on Accessibility

Beyond the preceding specific benefits, it helps to look at an entire body of accessibility standards to size up where there are gaps. In Ontario, for example, once five accessibility standards were enacted by 2012, it became clear that there were serious gaps in the areas of education and health care. This led to a determination that Ontario needs to develop new accessibility standards targeted at education and health care respectively.

4. Conclusion

There has been a great deal of work done around the world on developing accessibility standards, from which New Zealand can benefit. If the Bill were amended to empower and require the creation of enforceable accessibility standards, New Zealand could draw on and add to that global experience, making it easier and less expensive to implement these measures.

We would be pleased to provide the Parliament of New Zealand with any further information that might assist, including our experience with how to develop accessibility standards.

Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill

Government Bill

153—1

Explanatory note

General policy statement

This Bill establishes a new legislative framework that aims to provide a consistent methodology to address systemic accessibility barriers that prevent disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs from living independently and participating in all areas of life, and grow accessibility practices across New Zealand. It is aimed at addressing limitations in New Zealand’s current legal and policy framework that have resulted in an insufficient pace and extent of change to ensure disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs can participate in society on an equal basis with others.

Background

Disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs face significant barriers to experiencing positive wellbeing. Improving access to housing, transport, information, communication, technology, public buildings, and spaces is vitally important to enable them to participate in and feel belonging in the world. Improving accessibility is inextricably linked to achieving fundamental human rights and can help us continue to address the long-standing challenges of inequality and disproportionate disadvantage that disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs experience.

At present, efforts to address participation barriers are fragmented across the public service and are overly reliant on individual agencies to identify and appropriately prioritise barrier removal. This issue is driven by a lack of clear government leadership on accessibility issues. There is also a lack of awareness of the importance of accessibility across society and limited avenues for disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs to shape policy in these areas. A new and innovative approach is needed to meaningfully improve accessibility in New Zealand, which is the purpose of this Bill.

Objectives of Bill

The Bill’s objectives are to—

provide an enduring, clear, and consistent methodology for addressing systemic accessibility barriers and growing accessibility practices, now and in the future:

enhance leadership, accountability, and co-ordination to prevent and remove accessibility barriers and grow accessibility practices:

build knowledge and awareness about the importance of addressing accessibility barriers:

represent the voices of disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs:

be flexible and progressive:

give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi.

Achieving these objectives will allow for relevant entities to address barriers, enabling disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs to access a wide range of environments, information, and communications with dignity and on an equal basis with non-disabled people, to fully participate in society, and to have more control over matters affecting them. The following criteria was used to compare options for a framework to accelerate accessibility:

creates a strong, enduring mandate for change, with clear expectations around the need to identify, prevent, and remove accessibility barriers:

provides leadership, has clear roles and responsibilities, and increases accountability for identifying, preventing, and removing systemic accessibility barriers, with input from disabled people and affected sectors:

creates enduring and flexible mechanisms to progressively identify, prevent, and remove barriers, in a way that is consistent with the United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and embeds te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi:

the efficiency, feasibility, cost, and timeliness of establishing each option.

Establishing Accessibility Committee

This Bill creates a new leadership structure that carefully balances a level of independence with being able to work constructively with government. It provides independence through the establishment of a ministerial advisory committee (the Accessibility Committee), led by disabled people and tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, focused on making recommendations on how to address accessibility barriers to the Minister for Disability Issues.

This is complemented by responsibilities on the chief executive of Whaikaha–Ministry for Disabled People and the Minister for Disability Issues whose oversight and support are needed for the framework to succeed. The framework provides for collective co-ordination across government and a clear methodology to ensure accessibility barriers are, over time, systematically identified, removed, and prevented. A cycle of monitoring and review will be required, so the Accessibility Committee can regularly assess how well new and existing policies are performing and the system can grow and develop over time.

This legislative framework does not take a prescriptive approach through regulation. Rather, it establishes a clear process and governance structure to progressively identify, prevent, and remove accessibility barriers and grow accessibility practices across New Zealand. This will promote a fully accessible New Zealand where disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs have an equal opportunity to achieve their goals and aspirations.

Administering department

It is intended that Whaikaha–Ministry for Disabled People will be responsible for administering the Bill once it is enacted. To provide time for the Ministry to develop an implementation plan, the Bill provides for commencement by Order in Council with a backstop date of 1 July 2024.

Departmental disclosure statement

The Ministry of Social Development is required to prepare a disclosure statement to assist with the scrutiny of this Bill. The disclosure statement provides access to information about the policy development of the Bill and identifies any significant or unusual legislative features of the Bill.

A copy of the statement can be found at http://legislation.govt.nz/disclosure.aspx?type=bill&subtype=government&year=2022&no=153.

Regulatory impact statement

The Ministry of Social Development produced regulatory impact statements in September 2021 and March 2022 to help inform the main policy decisions taken by the Government relating to the contents of this Bill.

Copies of these regulatory impact statements can be found at—

https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/information-releases/cabinet-papers/2021/accelerate/regulatory-impact-statement-accelerating-accessibility.pdf

https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/information-releases/cabinet-papers/2022/accelerating-accessibility/accelerating-accessibility-ris-addendum.pdf

https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/ris

Clause by clause analysis

Clause 1 states the Title of the Bill.

Clause 2 provides for the Bill to come into force on a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council and, to the extent not previously brought into force by Order in Council, on 1 July 2024. The reason for deferred commencement of the Bill is to allow time for Whaikaha–Ministry for Disabled People (the Ministry) to develop an implementation plan for the Accessibility Committee (the Committee).

Part 1

Preliminary provisions

Clause 3 states the purpose of the Bill.

Clause 4 sets out principles to guide a person who performs a function or duty or exercises a power under the Bill.

Clause 5 requires all persons performing functions or duties and exercising powers under the Bill to act in a manner that gives effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi.

Clause 6 defines terms used in the Bill.

Clause 7 provides for transitional, savings, and related provisions to be set out in Schedule 1. There are no transitional, savings, or related provisions relating to the Bill as introduced.

Clause 8 provides that the Bill, when enacted, binds the Crown.

Part 2

Accessibility Committee

Subpart 1—Establishment of Committee

Clause 9 establishes the Accessibility Committee.

Membership of Committee

Clause 10 provides for membership of the Committee. The Committee consists of up to 8 members appointed by the Minister for Disability Issues (the Minister), comprising a chairperson and 5 to 7 other members.

Clause 10(2) enables the Minister, on the recommendation of the Committee, to appoint up to 2 additional members to ensure that the Committee as a whole has the attributes set out in clause 11(2).

Clause 11 sets out the process for appointing Committee members and specifies requirements and attributes relating to the appointment of members.

Nominations panels

Clause 12 requires the Minister to establish a community nominations panel for the purpose of nominating candidates for appointment as Committee members. Clause 12(2) and (3) provides for membership of the panel and criteria for appointment.

Clause 13 requires the Minister to establish a Māori nominations panel for the purpose of nominating candidates for appointment as Committee members. Clause 13(2) to (4) provides for the membership of the panel and criteria for appointment.

Further provisions relating to Committee

Clause 14 provides that the provisions set out in Schedule 2 apply to the Committee and its members.

Subpart 2—Committee’s function, duties, and powers

Functions and duties

Clause 15 sets out the functions of the Committee.

Clause 16 sets out general duties that apply to the Committee when it is performing its functions under the Bill.

Clause 17 requires the Committee, on an annual basis, to provide the Minister with a monitoring report that assesses the progress made by specified entities in implementing its recommendations in the previous 12 months. The report must specifically include an assessment of the progress made in addressing accessibility barriers and growing accessibility practices for tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs. Clause 17(3) requires the Minister to present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives as soon as practicable after receiving it.

Power to obtain information

Clause 18 empowers the Committee to request information from specified entities that it considers necessary or desirable for the purpose of making recommendations under clause 15(1)(c) and reporting on progress made by specified entities in implementing its recommendations under clause 15(1)(d).

Clause 19 restricts the Committee from requesting certain information from specified entities.

Clause 20 sets out grounds for a specified entity to refuse to supply information requested under clause 18.

Clause 21 sets out restrictions that apply to the publication or disclosure of information obtained by the Committee under clause 18.

Subpart 3—Other matters

Role of Minister and chief executive

Clause 22 sets out the role of the Minister in relation to the Committee.

Clause 23 sets out the role of the chief executive of the Ministry in relation to the Committee.

Technical advisory committees

Clause 24 provides that the chief executive of the Ministry may, on the recommendation of the Committee, establish 1 or more technical advisory committees to advise the Committee on the performance of its functions or duties under the Bill.

Review of Act

Clause 25 requires the Minister to arrange for an independent review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act no later than 5 years after the date on which clause 25 comes into force and at 5-yearly intervals after completion of the first review.

Amendment to Ombudsmen Act 1975

Clauses 26 and 27 amend Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 so that the Committee is subject to that Act and the Official Information Act 1982.

Hon Poto Williams

Text of the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill

Government Bill

153—1

The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows:

1 Title

This Act is the Accessibility for New Zealanders Act 2022.

2 Commencement

(1) This Act comes into force on a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.

(2) One or more Orders in Council may be made appointing different dates for the commencement of different provisions and for different purposes.

(3) To the extent that it is not previously brought into force under subsection (1), this Act comes into force on 1 July 2024.

(4) An order made under subsection (1) is secondary legislation (see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements).

Part 1

Preliminary provisions

3 Purpose

(1) The purpose of this Act is to accelerate progress towards a fully accessible New Zealand where disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs have an equal opportunity to achieve their goals and aspirations.

(2) To that end, this Act establishes the Accessibility Committee to—

(a) identify accessibility barriers in New Zealand society; and

(b)progressively work towards preventing and removing accessibility barriers in New Zealand society; and

4Principles

All persons performing a function or duty or exercising a power under this Act must have regard to the need to respect and uphold the rights of disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs in New Zealand law, including rights that are derived from the following:

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

(b) other international instruments that are relevant to, and that affect, disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs.

5 Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons performing a function or duty or exercising a power under this Act must act in a manner that gives effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi.

6 Interpretation

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

accessibility barriers means obstacles or circumstances that prevent or hinder disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs from living independently and participating on an equal basis with others

Accessibility Committee or Committee means the Committee established by section 9

accessibility practices means actions, measures, modifications, or adjustments that enable disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs to live independently and participate fully on an equal basis with others

chief executive means the chief executive of the Ministry

Minister means the Minister of the Crown who, under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister, is responsible for the administration of this Act

Ministry means the department of State that, with the authority of the Prime Minister, is for the time being responsible for the administration of this Act

recommendation, except in sections 10(2) and 24(1), means a recommendation made by the Committee under section 15(1)(c)

specified entity means—

(a) a department named in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Public Service Act 2020, other than—

(i) the Government Communications Security Bureau; and

(ii) the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service:

(b) a departmental agency named in Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Public Service Act 2020:

(d) Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand:

(e) a local authority (as defined in section 5(1) of the Local Government Act 2002)

tāngata whaikaha means disabled people who are Māori

te ao Māori means Māori world view

tikanga Māori means Māori custom and protocol.

7 Transitional, savings, and related provisions

The transitional, savings, and related provisions (if any) set out in Schedule 1 have effect according to their terms.

8 Act binds the Crown

This Act binds the Crown.

Part 2

Accessibility Committee

Subpart 1—Establishment of Committee

9 Accessibility Committee established

This section establishes the Accessibility Committee.

Membership of Committee

10 Membership of Committee

(1) The Committee consists of up to 8 members appointed by the Minister, comprising—

(a) a chairperson; and

(b) 5 to 7 other members.

(2) The Minister may, on the recommendation of the Committee, appoint up to 2 additional members to ensure that the Committee as a whole has the attributes set out section 11(2), in which case, the Committee consists of up to 10 members.

11 Process for appointing Committee members

(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, appoint a person as a Committee member if—

(a) the person has been nominated by the community nominations panel or the Māori nominations panel; and

(b) the Minister has had regard to the matters in subsection (2).

(2) When appointing Committee members, the Minister must—

(a) ensure that a majority of the members are disabled; and

(b) ensure that the Committee as a whole—

(i) has knowledge and understanding of te Tiriti of Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi, te ao Māori, and tikanga Māori; and

(ii) has knowledge and understanding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and

(iii) has knowledge of, and experience in, preventing and removing accessibility barriers and growing accessibility practices; and

(i) has knowledge of, and experience in, government processes and business; and

(ii) reflects a broad range of types of impairment; and

(iii) has a gender balance; and

(iv) includes perspectives of people from different cultural backgrounds and of different ages; and

(v) includes whānau or carers (or both) of disabled people; and

(vi) has knowledge of, and experience in, any other matters that the Minister thinks fit.

Nominations panels

12 Community nominations panel

(1) The Minister must establish a community nominations panel for the purpose of nominating 1 or more candidates for appointment by the Minister as Committee members.

(2) The community nominations panel consists of up to 5 members appointed by the Minister, comprising—

(a) a chairperson; and

(b) up to 4 other members.

(3) The Minister must appoint to the community nominations panel people who, in the Minister’s opinion, have the relevant skills or experience to identify suitably qualified candidates for appointment to the Committee, having regard to—

(a) networks of importance to disabled people and tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau; and

(b) individuals or groups whose specific perspectives are required for the purposes of the Committee’s functions or duties; and

13 Māori nominations panel

(1) The Minister must establish a Māori nominations panel for the purpose of nominating 1 or more candidates for appointment by the Minister as Committee members.

(2) The Māori nominations panel consists of up to 5 members appointed by the Minister, comprising—

(a) a chairperson; and

(b) up to 4 other members.

(3) The Minister must appoint to the Māori nominations panel people who, in the Minister’s opinion, have the relevant skills or experience to identify suitably qualified candidates for appointment to the Committee.

(4) In appointing persons to the Māori nominations panel, the Minister must, as far as is reasonably practicable, consult—

(a) tāngata whaikaha and their whānau; and

(b) networks of importance to tāngata whaikaha and their whānau; and

Further provisions relating to Committee

14 Further provisions relating to Committee

The provisions set out in Schedule 2 apply to the Committee and its members.

Subpart 2—Committee’s functions, duties, and powers

Functions and duties

15Functions of Committee

(1) The functions of the Committee are—

(a) to provide advice to the Minister on matters relating to accessibility barriers and accessibility practices:

(b) to develop a work programme that sets out the accessibility barriers and accessibility practices that the Committee intends to provide advice to the Minister about:

(c) to make recommendations to the Minister about the prevention or removal of accessibility barriers by specified entities and the growing of accessibility practices by specified entities:

(d) to assess, and report to the Minister under section 17 on, progress made by specified entities in implementing the Committee’s recommendations:

(e) to perform any other functions conferred or imposed on the Committee—

(i) by the Minister; or

(ii) by or under any other legislation.

(2)The Committee’s work programme developed under subsection (1)(b) must be—

(a) updated at least annually; and

(b) published on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the Ministry.

(3) When making a recommendation under subsection (1)(c), the Committee must, as far as is reasonably practicable,—

(a) identify the domain in which the accessibility barrier or accessibility practice exists; and

(b) describe the nature and scale of the accessibility barrier or accessibility practice; and

(c) describe the historic and current context of the accessibility barrier or accessibility practice, as appropriate; and

(d) outline options to address the accessibility barrier or grow the accessibility practice, including any financial implications; and

(e) outline the potential benefits and trade-offs involved in addressing the accessibility barrier or growing the accessibility practice; and

(f) state who the Committee has consulted in developing the recommendation.

16 Duties of Committee

(1) In performing its functions, the Committee must—

(a) give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and consider tikanga Māori and te ao Māori in its work in preventing and removing accessibility barriers and growing accessibility practices; and

(b) ensure that its work incorporates the experiences of disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs.

(2) When developing recommendations, the Committee must consult affected sectors and interested parties, including disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs in a way that is accessible.

17 Annual monitoring report

(1) The Committee must, on an annual basis, provide the Minister with a written monitoring report that contains an assessment of the progress made by specified entities in implementing its recommendations in the 12 months before the date of the report.

(2) The Committee must ensure that the report includes an assessment of the progress made in addressing accessibility barriers and growing accessibility practices for tāngata whaikaha and their families or whānau.

(3) The Minister must present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives as soon as practicable after receiving it.

Power to obtain information

18 Power of Committee to obtain information

(1) The Committee may request a specified entity to supply it with any information that the Committee considers necessary or desirable for the purpose of enabling it to perform its functions under section 15(1)(c) and (d).

(2) A request—

(a) must be in writing; and

(b) may state the date by which, and the manner in which, the information must be provided.

(3) If a date is specified, that date must be reasonable.

(4) A specified entity that receives a request under this section must comply with the request, subject to sections 19 and 20.

(5) Before making a request under this section, the Committee must consult the chief executive.

Compare: 2020 No 32 s 14; 2019 No 51 s 23

19 Restriction on requests for certain information

The Committee may not request, and a specified entity must not supply, information under section 18 that is—

(a) personal information (as defined in section 7(1) of the Privacy Act 2020); or

(b) information held by the Government Statistician that was collected under the Statistics Act 1975; or

Compare: 2020 No 32 s 15; 2019 No 51 ss 24, 25(1)(b)

20 Grounds for refusing to supply requested information

(1) A request for information under section 18 may be refused if—

(a) the information requested can be properly withheld under the Official Information Act 1982; or

(b) the supply of the information would limit the ability of the specified entity, or of any of its employees, members, or office holders, to act judicially, or to carry out the statutorily independent functions of the specified entity, in relation to a particular matter; or

(c) the document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or, despite reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found; or

(d) the information requested cannot be made available without substantial research.

(2) If a request is likely to be refused under subsection (1)(c) or (d), the specified entity must, before refusing the request, consider whether consulting the Committee would assist the Committee to make the request in a form that would remove the reason for the refusal.

Compare: 2020 No 32 s 15; 2019 No 51 s 25(1)(b); 1982 No 156 s 18(e)

21 Restriction on publication or disclosure of information

The Committee must not publish or disclose any information obtained under section 18 unless 1 or more of the following apply:

(a) the information is available to the public under any enactment or is otherwise publicly available:

(b) the information is in a statistical or summary form:

(d) the publication or disclosure is made under the Official Information Act 1982 or is otherwise required by law.

Compare: 2020 No 32 s 16; 2019 No 51 s 26

Subpart 3—Other matters

Role of Minister and chief executive

22 Role of Minister

The role of the Minister in relation to the Committee includes (without limitation)—

(a) approving the Committee’s work programme after making any necessary amendments:

(b) presenting recommendations made by the Committee to the House of Representatives:

(c) advising the Committee, within a reasonable time frame and after collaborating with other relevant Ministers, about how the Committee’s recommendations have been, or will be, considered by the Government:

(d) arranging for independent reviews of the operation and effectiveness of this Act to be carried out as required.

23 Role of chief executive

The role of the chief executive in relation to the Committee includes (without limitation)—

(a) assisting the Committee to develop its recommendations:

(b) supporting the Committee in making information requests under section 18:

(d) providing the administrative and analytical support that is necessary to enable the Committee to perform and exercise its functions, duties, and powers:

(e) publishing the Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the Ministry.

Technical advisory committees

24 Technical advisory committees

(1) The chief executive may, on the recommendation of the Committee, establish 1 or more technical advisory committees to advise the Committee on the performance of the Committee’s functions and duties under this Act.

(2) The chief executive may—

(a) appoint members of a technical advisory committee on any terms and conditions that the chief executive thinks fit; and

(b) specify terms of reference for the technical advisory committee’s work.

(3) A technical advisory committee must comply with any terms of reference specified by the chief executive.

(4) A technical advisory committee may, subject to any provision of this Act and any terms of reference, determine its own procedure.

Review of Act

25 Review of Act

(1) The Minister must arrange for an independent review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act—

(a) no later than 5 years after the commencement of this section; and

(b) at 5-yearly intervals after completion of the first review.

(2) The person (or persons) conducting the review must prepare a report on the review and provide it to the Minister.

(3) The review must consider—

(a) whether the functions, duties, and powers set out in this Act adequately give effect to the purpose of this Act; and

(b) whether any amendments to this Act are necessary or desirable.

(4) The Minister must present a copy of the report on the review to the House of Representatives as soon as practicable after receiving it.

Amendment to Ombudsmen Act 1975

26 Principal Act

Section 27 amends the Ombudsmen Act 1975.

27 Schedule 1 amended

In Schedule 1, Part 2, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order:

Accessibility Committee established under the Accessibility for New Zealanders Act 2022

Schedule 1

Transitional, savings, and related provisions

s 7

Part 1

Provisions relating to this Act as enacted

There are no transitional, savings, or related provisions in this Act as enacted.

Schedule 2

Further provisions relating to Committee

s 14

1Term of office

(1) A person holds office as a Committee member for a term not exceeding 3 years specified in the person’s notice of appointment.

(2) A person who holds office as a Committee member—

(a) may be reappointed for 1 or more further terms; and

(b) continues in office, unless they earlier vacate office by reason of death, resignation, or removal, until either of the following occurs:

(i) the person is reappointed:

(ii) the person’s successor is appointed.

(3) A person who holds office as a Committee member may at any time resign by written notice to the Minister.

(4) A notice of resignation under subclause (3) must state the date on which the resignation takes effect.

2 Removal from office

(1) The Minister may remove a Committee member from office if—

(a) the Minister is satisfied there is just cause to remove the member; and

(b) reasonable accommodations have been provided to the member before the removal; and

(2) The removal must be made by written notice to the member (with a copy to the Committee).

(3) The notice must—

(a) state the date on which the removal takes effect, which must not be earlier than the date on which the notice is received; and

(b) state the reasons for the removal.

(4) The Minister must notify the removal in the Gazette as soon as practicable after the notice is given.

(5) In this clause, just cause includes misconduct, inability to perform the functions of office, neglect of duty, and breach of any of the collective duties of Committee members (depending on the seriousness of the breach).

3 Remuneration and expenses

(1) A Committee member is entitled—

(a) to receive remuneration not within paragraph (b) for services as a member at a rate and of a kind determined by the Minister in accordance with the fees framework; and

(b) in accordance with the fees framework, to be reimbursed for actual and reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred in carrying out their office as a member.

(2) In subclause (1), fees framework means the framework determined by the Government from time to time for the classification and remuneration of statutory and other bodies in which the Crown has an interest.

4 Protection from liability

A Committee member is not personally liable for any act done or omitted by the member or the Committee in good faith in the course of the operations of the Committee.

5 Procedure

The Committee may determine its own procedure for the performance or exercise of its functions, duties, or powers.

The Parliamentary Counsel Office