I recently attended a Disability Support Services (DSS) workshop on personalised budgets for disabled people. The discussion largely revolved around eligibility and assessment. I also completed the accompanying DSS survey, which raised further concerns.

As many of you know, last year the New Zealand Government drastically restricted the kinds of equipment and services disabled people could purchase to achieve a good life. The flexibility that once allowed individuals to meet their specific needs was sacrificed in favour of a narrow range of mostly neurologically focused supports.

For example, a blind person receiving respite care funding can no longer purchase Braille or audiobooks, but can buy noise-cancelling headphones, despite the obvious safety risks of using these while crossing busy streets.

When disabled people and our allies objected to these changes, the Government insisted that funding hadnt been cut, only restricted. But these restrictions are arbitrary and, in some cases, harmful. The shrinking list of eligible purchases has left many unable to use their allocated budgets. Disabled New Zealanders recognise that this situation has been deliberately engineered, likely as a pretext for further cuts in Thursdays budget.

Turning to the current consultation on personalised budgets (a high-level term encompassing multiple funding streams with varying eligibility criteria), several concerning issues stand out:

1. Lack of Genuine Disabled Leadership

Discussions about disability services must be authentically led and managed by disabled people. While some disabled individuals are involved, far more meaningful leadership is needed. Having worked in the Public Service, I understand the constraints of the system, but these consultations must be genuinely inclusive, not just performative.

2. Moves Toward Means Testing

The DSS survey in particular, strongly suggests the Government is considering means testing personalised budgets. This would penalise disabled people for striving toward financial independence and undermine the idea that support is an entitlement, not a favour.

3. Absence of a Rights-Based Approach

Instead of framing support as charity, the Government must follow international examples where personalised budgets are treated as entitlements, just like New Zealands National Superannuation. Such an approach affirms dignity and autonomy.

4. A Flawed Consultation Process

Although the survey allowed individuals to share views, the public meetings grouped disabled people, families, and organisations together. This structure risks drowning out the voices of disabled people, particularly when service providers and related organisations are focused on retaining their own government funding.

It appears that the Government may be manoeuvring disabled New Zealanders into accepting further restrictions, including means testing. But if we recognise this manipulation, we can push back. That pushback would be even more powerful with solidarity from other marginalised groups, who regularly ask for support from within the community.

We must exert political pressure, through the media and by contacting our local MPs, to demand the full rollout of Enabling Good Lives (EGL), which promises a fairer system grounded in choice and control. We’ve been waiting for this roll-out since 2011.

We understand that eligibility must be fairly established. This should be based initially on clear impairment criteria. Disability identity is important, but it is understood that funding is finite. EGL has already proven successful in the Manawat so why the delay in expanding it nationwide?

Finally, any government ministers who believe a return to institutional models of provision for disabled people would be more cost-effective than providing individualised support, are simply deluded. Not only would such a move risk another costly Royal Commission into abuse, but it also ignores the long-term social and financial costs of exclusion. Just look at the staggering expenses associated with the penal system.

Disabled people can and do contribute to our various communities, we have no wish to be treated as unproductive charity cases, pushed to the margins of society.