Outcome 8 - Leadership

We have great opportunities to demonstrate our leadership

Our future and what needs to happen

We have opportunities and are supported to be leaders or role models in whatever field or level we may choose. Leadership for us includes doing great things on behalf of our country or at a national level, and also doing everyday ordinary things for ourselves, our families, whānau or communities. For example, we can be leaders in employment, through voluntary work or at a political level, both locally and nationally.

We are on a level playing field with others and are recognised for our skills, talents and leadership potential. We are supported to develop our leadership potential, and take responsibility for the pursuit and achievement of our goals. When we are young or have an emerging leadership role, we are supported and mentored.

When there are discussions and decisions on things that are important to disabled people, we have strong leaders who represent our views around the table. Our experience of disability is recognised as expertise, and we are acknowledged as experts in our own lives. This representation includes the diversity of the disability community, including the groups within our community who often have not had a voice.

When there are non-disabled people in leadership roles that are important to our community, in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors, they will act as our allies and work closely with us. In this way they can use their influence to help break down the barriers that we experience and that disable us.

What this means:

  • Disabled people are consulted on and actively involved in the development and implementation of legislation and policies concerning leadership, in particular where this is specific to them.
  • Disabled people are recognised as experts in their own lives.
  • People in leadership roles in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors will be supported to see themselves as allies to the disability community. They will work in partnership with disabled people on things that are important to them.
  • Decision-making on issues regarding leadership, in particular those specific to disabled people, is informed by robust data and evidence.  

Actions

The action outlined below will help achieve this outcome. This work was started under the existing Disability Action Plan.   

5. Priority: Promote the involvement of Disabled People’s Organisations in the design and monitoring of the disability support system transformation

5 A: DPOs and government working together - joint work programme on involving DPOs in decisions that affect disabled people agreed by the Chief Executives’ Group on Disability Issues and Independent Monitors on 21 August 2013.

On this page

Progress update

Scope of action

Progress update to November 2017

 

Status: Minor risks to achieving milestones - Orange (Partly complete. It has been rescoped, and actions 5a/b merged).

The Office for Disability Issues is waiting on the DPO Coalition to complete their MSD-funded capability work and Te Pou-funded governance training and other capability building, before exploring further any additional areas for capability strengthening.

Action Milestones:

Work by DPOs to increase the diversity of disabled peoples' voices being heard by government agencies [on-going]

ODI to progress new arrangement for collective funding for DPOs (October 2016) [on-going]

  • The collective funding arrangement is for DPOs to engage with the Disability Action Plan.
  • This builds on DPOs' experience with capability development work to date.
  • DPOs are trialling new ways of managing their meetings, with support from ODI.

ODI: develop reasonable accommodation approach (November 2016) [on-going]

  • This is so government agencies are consistent in providing reasonable accommodations for DPOs' participation in the Disability Action Plan action activity.
  • The March 2017 Guidelines for DPOs meetings: costs and fees, agreed between ODI and DPOs, strongly features reasonable accommodation. ODI is working with government agencies on the feasibility of establishing a consistent and fair approach to reasonable accommodation generally.

Agreement to refresh the governance structure over the DAP [on-going]

  • Process to understand experiences under the relationship principles (November - December 2016)
  • Revised scope (November 2016)
  • ODI and DPOs to identify further activities to progress these two actions in 2017 (January/February 2017)

'Guidelines for DPS meetings: costs and fees' document developed (March 2017) [complete]

  • The Guidelines highlight reasonable accommodations for DPOs engaging with government agencies. It will inform a wider discussion towards a consistent approach by government agencies when working with DPOs under the Disability Action Plan.

Consider options for a collective contract (thoughout 2017) [on-going]

  • ODI is continuing to discuss with DPOs ways to make the meetings and working together processes more efficient and effective. The collective contract is to support DPOs engagement with government agencies and help build DPOs capacility, through devolving responsibility for the collective working together arrangements from ODI to the DPOs.

 

Lead: Office for Disability  Issues

DPOs contact: DPO managers 

Scope of action

Scope in development.

The action outlined below will help achieve this outcome. This work was started under the existing Disability Action Plan.  

5. Priority: Promote the involvement of Disabled People’s Organisations in the design and monitoring of the disability support system transformation

5 B: Improve DPO capability (individually and collectively) to engage with government agencies and their wider community, and consider representation of different population groups in DPOs.

On this page

Progress update

Scope of action

Progress update to November 2017

Status: Minor risks to achieving milestones - Orange (Partly complete. It has been rescoped, and actions 5a/b merged).

The Office for Disability Issues is waiting on the DPO Coalition to complete their MSD-funded capability work and Te Pou-funded governance training and other capability building, before exploring further any additional areas for capability strengthening.

Action Milestones:

Work by DPOs to increase the diversity of disabled peoples' voices being heard by government agencies [on-going]

ODI to progress new arrangement for collective funding for DPOs (October 2016) [on-going]

  • The collective funding arrangement is for DPOs to engage with the Disability Action Plan.
  • This builds on DPOs' experience with capability development work to date.
  • DPOs are trialling new ways of managing their meetings, with support from ODI.

ODI: develop reasonable accommodation approach (November 2016) [on-going]

  • This is so government agencies are consistent in providing reasonable accommodations for DPOs' participation in the Disability Action Plan action activity.
  • The March 2017 Guidelines for DPOs meetings: costs and fees, agreed between ODI and DPOs, strongly features reasonable accommodation. ODI is working with government agencies on the feasibility of establishing a consistent and fair approach to reasonable accommodation generally.

Agreement to refresh the governance structure over the DAP [on-going]

  • Process to understand experiences under the relationship principles (November - December 2016)
  • Revised scope (November 2016)
  • ODI and DPOs to identify further activities to progress these two actions in 2017 (January/February 2017)

'Guidelines for DPS meetings: costs and fees' document developed (March 2017) [complete]

  • The Guidelines highlight reasonable accommodations for DPOs engaging with government agencies. It will inform a wider discussion towards a consistent approach by government agencies when working with DPOs under the Disability Action Plan.

Consider options for a collective contract (thoughout 2017) [on-going]

  • ODI is continuing to discuss with DPOs ways to make the meetings and working together processes more efficient and effective. The collective contract is to support DPOs engagement with government agencies and help build DPOs capacility, through devolving responsibility for the collective working together arrangements from ODI to the DPOs.

 

Lead: Office for Disability  Issues

DPOs contact: DPO managers 

Scope of action

Scope in development.

The action outlined below will help achieve this outcome. This work was started under the existing Disability Action Plan.  

9. Priority: Increase government services’ responsiveness to disabled people

9 E: Implement the work programme of the Disability Data and Evidence Working Group, including a focus on Māori and Pasifika.

On this page

Progress update

Scope of action

  1. Context: brief background, what is this action intended to achieve?
  2. Proposed scope
  3. Contributors/partners with lead – who is involved in this action?
  4. Reporting – key milestones/deliverables
  5. Risks
  6. Impact – what are we trying to achieve?
  7. Evidence base
  8. Related work

Progress update to November 2017

Status: Minor risks to achieving milestones - Orange

When the Disability Data and Evidence Working Group's work was initially scoped, there was no indication that indicators would need to be developed to monitor progress in the implementation of the New Zealand Disability Strategy. The development of the Outcomes Framework means that data needs will now be framed by the development of indicators for the eight outcome domains in the Strategy. However, this will not totally define the work of the DDEWG going forward.

  • The Disability Data and Evidence Working Group has assisted Stats NZ to make improvements in the inclusion of disabled people in various household surveys. The Washington Group Short Set (WGSS) of questions to identify disabled people was included in the New Zealand General Social Survey (NZGSS) 2017. The WGSS will contiue to be included in the NZGSS which is run every two years. The WGSS was also included in the June quarter of the Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS), and will continue to be included in each June quarter going forward. Finally, the WGSS will be included in the 2018 Census.

Action Milestones:

Government stocktake completed in May 2016 [completed]

  • Currently available on Office for Disability Issues website at: http://www.odi.govt.nz/what-we-do/better-evidence/index.html.

Stocktake of organisations outside government (August 2016) [completed, in September 2016)    

Consultation on and finalisation of enduring questions (August 2016) [on-going]

  • Documenting and prioritising a list of enduring questions was mostly completed in September 2016.
  • The enduring questions document will remain relevant in identifying and prioritising initiatives to address gaps or deficiencies in meeting disability data needs.

Identify and prioritise initiatives to address gaps and deficiencies in meeting data needs (September 2016 to December 2016) [on-going]

  • The DDEWG met in October 2017 to discuss its role going forward. It was agreed to develop a work programme based on the new priority of data needs being framed by the development of the Strategy Outcomes Framework.

 

Lead: Office for Disability Issues, Statistics New Zealand

DPOs contact: Individual expert

 

Scope of action

1  Context: Brief background, what is this action intended to achieve?

In March 2011, the Government submitted its first report outlining progress in the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in New Zealand. Improving data collection and statistics on disabled people was one of the recommendations put forward in the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (the Committee) report released in October 2014 in response to the Government’s report.

In response to the Committee’s recommendation, the Disability Data and Evidence Working Group (the Working Group), co-facilitated by the Office for Disability Issues and Statistics New Zealand, was established in June 2015.

A key purpose of the Working Group is to define, clarify and prioritise information needs in order to:

  • improve the lives of disabled people
  • inform better quality monitoring of and reporting on the CRPD, the New Zealand Disability Strategy and the Disability Action Plan 2014-2018.

2  Proposed scope

The purpose of Action 9 (e) is to implement the Working Group’s work programme.

The aim of the work programme is to develop a Disability Domain Plan.

The purpose of the Disability Domain Plan is to develop a shared understanding of the strengths, gaps, overlaps and deficiencies in data and evidence relating to disabled people in New Zealand. It will make sure that we collect the right information on disability to ensure that the right decisions are made on things that impact on disabled people. There are four steps involved in the development of the Disability Domain Plan:

  1. Carry out a stocktake of data and evidence currently available in New Zealand.
  2. Develop an agreed set of enduring questions to identify long-term needs for data and evidence on disabled people.
  3. Analyse the stocktake with respect to the questions to determine gaps or deficiencies in meeting data needs.
  4. Identify and prioritise initiatives to address gaps or deficiencies in meeting data needs.

3  Contributors/partners with lead – who is involved in this action?

The Office for Disability Issues and Statistics New Zealand are jointly leading the implementation of the Working Group’s work programme.

The Working Group includes representatives from the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Social Development, Ministry of Justice, ACC, universities/research institutes and service providers. It also includes a representative of Disabled People’s Organisations (nominated by DPOs themselves).

4  Reporting – key milestones/deliverables

Stocktake on data and evidence in New Zealand:

  • government stocktake completed in May 2016 (currently available on Office for Disability Issues website at: http://www.odi.govt.nz/what-we-do/better-evidence/index.html 
  • stocktake of organisations outside government -  August 2016.

Consultation and finalisation of enduring questions – August 2016 (date TBC).

Identify and prioritise initiatives to address gaps and deficiencies in meeting data needs – September 2016 to December 2016.

5  Risks

Since the establishment of the Working Group in June 2015, there are high expectations in the wider disability sector about needs for data and evidence on disabled people being met.

Lack of clarity/shared understanding of definitions of disability.

6  Impact – what are we trying to achieve?

The end-result of implementing the Working Group’s work programme will be:

  • up-to-date knowledge in the Disability Domain Plan about the kinds of data and evidence needed to underpin the development of policy and service delivery planning
  • improved knowledge and understanding of disability issues among the members of the Working Group, government agencies, DPOs and the wider disability sector.

7  Evidence base

Completed stocktakes.

8  Related work

The revision of the New Zealand Disability Strategy fits well into the Working Group’s development of the Disability Domain Plan. The identification of strengths, gaps and deficiencies in data relating to disabled people will inform the Outcomes Framework which will be developed to monitor implementation of the Disability Strategy. 

The development of the Health Research Strategy also fits well into the Working Group’s development of the Disability Domain Plan. The identification of strengths, gaps and deficiencies in data relating to the health of disabled people and their access to health services in the Domain Plan, could inform health researchers’ decisions on issues to prioritise in disability research pertaining to health. 

Action 9 F: Undertake a stocktake to identify any legislation that contradicts the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and explore options to improve consistency

On this page

Progress update

Scope of action

Progress update to November 2017

 

Status: On track - Green

The final scope for this action was approved by DPOs on 18 October 2017 and the work has begun.

 Action Milestones:

Scope discussed/agreed by DPO coalition and Senior Officials  [completed]

  • Action scope approved by DPO Coalition and Senior Officials at meeting on 18 October 2017.

Compile list of legislation to analyse (November 2017) [on-going]

  • Work has begun to draw up a list of legislation to analyse by:
    • consulting with DPO Coalition, relevant disability sector organisations, and government agencies to identify legislation that, in their experience, contradicts the CRPD
    • conducting a word search for phrases concerning disability in current legislation on the legislation.govt.nz website
    • including legislation identified by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in New Zealand's 2014 review
    • consult prior work done by ODI to identify legislation with references to disability.

Initial evaluation of legislation (December/January 2018)

Engagement with key agencies to discuss initial findings (February/March 2018)

Explore options for next steps (March/April 2018)

Final report and advice to the DPO Coalition and Senior Officials (April 2018)

 

Lead: Office for Disability Issues

DPOs contact: Blind Citizens

Scope of action – 25 October 2017

Action 9 F: Undertake a stocktake to identify any legislation that contradicts the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and explore options to improve consistency

Lead

1       The Office for Disability Issues (ODI) and the DPO Coalition.

2       Blind Citizens NZ is the DPO Coalition lead on this action.

Background

3       This action is part of a shared result area to promote access in the community under Priority 9: Increase government services’ responsiveness to disabled people. This follows from the update of the Disability Action Plan 2015.

4       The DPO Coalition calls for legislation to be more consistent with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); while acknowledging that this needs to be carried out as a phased approach due to limited resources. In the future, this may involve exploring legislative changes to introduce new measures required by the CRPD.

5       This action is considered to be a priority as the last analysis of New Zealand legislation against the CRPD was done in 2008, during preparations for the Government’s ratification of the CRPD. The legislation changes made were considered "minor and technical" and able to be made through an omnibus Bill. Most of the changes referred to a person’s status under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. Changes to the Human Rights Act 1993 regarding reasonable accommodations were also made.

6       The Government noted in their response to the UN Committee on the Rights on Persons with Disabilities’ (CRPD Committee) first Concluding Observations in 2015 that this action was in the Disability Action Plan. New Zealand’s second review by the CRPD Committee will take place during 2018 - 2019. This action therefore needs to be given a priority for completion in preparation for the next review. It can help ensure New Zealand’s international obligations are met.

7       Since 2008, understanding has progressed considerably on disability issues, particularly as New Zealand has ratified the CRPD during this time. There may be differences in what is considered to contradict the CRPD in 2017 than was the case in 2008.

Purpose of the Action

8       This action will allow us to understand how much, and to what degree, New Zealand has legislation that contradicts the CRPD.

9       Once we have a clear idea of what this legislation is, and how much there is, we will explore options for next steps.

10   This action informs future action consistent with Article 4(b) of the CRPD: “To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities”.

Assumptions for this Action (including what is included and excluded from the scope of this Action)

11   ODI will take a 2017 rights-based approach to this action by looking to the CRPD and Committee advice where possible.

What “legislation” means for the purposes of this action

12   We define legislation that is in scope for this work as:

12.1       New Zealand Acts and Bills (proposed Acts, which were introduced and not yet enacted at the time of the work). This includes Amendment Legislation.

13      Legislation that is out of scope includes:

13.1       Repealed and revoked legislation

13.2       Other Legislative Instruments including Supplementary Order Papers ( a type of proposed amendment to a Bill), Orders in Council, regulations, rules, notices, determinations, proclamations and warrants.

13.3       Any local government by-laws.

Method to identify a list of relevant legislation for this action

14   Within the resources available to ODI, it is not efficient or practical to look at every piece of legislation in New Zealand to discover which contradicts the CRPD therefore:

14.1       ODI will consult with relevant disability sector organisations, government agencies and individuals to identify the legislation that they think, from their experience, contradicts the CRPD. ODI will consult with the DPO Coalition organisations first. A list of relevant agencies is in Appendix 1.

14.1.1      ODI will need to consider this advice and make a decision whether we agree that the legislation contradicts the CRPD for the purposes of this action or whether it is out of scope. The DPO Coalition will have the opportunity to provide their input into the legislation that is considered in and out of scope.

14.2       ODI will consult on a list of legislation which has references to disability in it which was last updated in 2011.

14.3       ODI will ensure that any legislation identified by the CRPD Committee in New Zealand’s 2014 review is included in this list.

14.4       ODI will run a word search for phrases concerning disability in current legislation on the legislation.govt.nz website to identify other legislation directly relevant to disabled people. For a list of suggested words see Appendix 2.

15   Once we have a list of legislation, we will check whether it does contradict with the CRPD, and identify the specific CRPD article that it contradicts. We will do this by collecting information in a table (see template in Appendix 3).

16   The DPO Coalition will have an opportunity to view this table and provide their input into the analysis.

What “contradicts” means for the purposes of this action

17   This action will identify legislation that contradicts the CRPD. This means legislation that directly goes against at least one Article of the CRPD. For example, if legislation said, or had the effect that, “disabled people cannot execute a trust or get married” then this is a direct contradiction to the CRPD.

18   Examples of legislative contradictions with the CRPD include:

 

Contradiction

Example

Why this contradicts the CRPD

Legislation identifies a   person with an impairment which results in a disadvantage for them

 

E.g. “This Act applies only   to people with mental health issues or Blind people”.

This is discrimination   based on disability.

Legislation identifies the   status of a person with an impairment which results in a disadvantage for   them

 

E.g. “A person, who is subject   to a compulsory treatment for a mental health issue, cannot execute a trust.”

This links a person’s   capacity to fulfil a role according to the person’s status under the   legislation rather than assessing their actual ability to perform the   function.

Legislation   disproportionally limits or disadvantages people with an impairment in   practice compared with others even though the legislation does not directly   identify a person with an impairment.

 

E.g. Anti-Money Laundering   Act, where you must have two forms of identification to prove your identity   in organisations covered by the AML Act.

A requirement for photo ID   currently disadvantages those who don’t have common forms of photographic   identification to prove their identity. We know that this disproportionately   affects disabled people particularly Blind people and those with learning   disabilities.

This would be a limit on   legal agency and for identification.

19   Articles can be interpreted in different ways but, if available, Articles should be read in line with General Comments from the CRPD Committee as these provide further explanation on the intent of the articles. There are currently five General Comments which refer to:

19.1       Article 6: Women and girls with disabilities

19.2       Article 9: Accessibility

19.3       Article 12: Equal recognition before the law

19.4       Article 19: Right to independent living

19.5       Article 24: Right to inclusive education

20   These General Comments can be found on the CRPD Committee website at: www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/GC.aspx

21   There are likely to be differing opinions of what does or does not contradict. We will try to resolve this through consultation with the relevant stakeholder. If this cannot be resolved ODI will record any differing opinions in the final advice to the DPO Coalition and Senior Officials group.

If ODI determines that the legislation contradicts the CRPD, we will evaluate whether it is justified.

22   We will need to understand what the reason is for the legislation contradicting the CRPD and whether this is justifiable based on objective reasoning. For example, is it justifiable on grounds of providing safeguards for the most vulnerable people?

What “contradicts” does not mean for the purposes of this Action

23   Legislation will not be considered to contradict the CRPD if there is an:

23.1       omission in the legislation,

23.2       outdated, offensive, or inappropriate language. (While important, this only identifies the words used rather than the intent behind the provision in the legislation), and/or

23.3       the legislation takes a wider/narrower view than what the CRPD intended.

24   This is to ensure that this action is manageable within the resources available to ODI and the DPO Coalition.

25   If such legislation is identified by stakeholders it will be outside the scope of this action. However a record will be kept, and may be used as a starting point for subsequent work. Future work may allow for a scan of wider legislation beyond statutes.

Exploring options for next steps

26   ODI and the DPO Coalition will explore options for next steps. This may include doing an evaluation exercise to determine which changes to prioritise first. For example, we may decide to focus on lobbying for amendments to one piece of legislation that has a huge impact on disabled people rather than lobbying for 10 changes.

27   To enable exploring options for next steps, ODI will need to identify the responsible agency of legislation that has contradictions. Any change to legislation would need to be agreed by the responsible agency and Ministry and likely also led by them.

28   Options for next steps could include (but is not limited to):

28.1       Doing nothing (retain the status quo).

28.2       Remedying the contradiction when the legislation is next up for review.

28.3       Amending the legislation in the next 3 years.

28.4       Engaging with the Parliamentary Counsel Office to identify where we could prevent contradictions occurring in future legislation.

29   Outside the scope of this action are:

29.1       Drafting amendments to legislation, and

29.2       Considering improving legislation that does not contradict the CRPD.

Implementation Plan

30   There are three steps to complete this action:

30.1       Identifying the legislation to check for contradictions with the CRPD;

30.2       Evaluating the legislation to check:

30.2.1      Is it in scope of the action?

30.2.2      What CRPD Article does it contradict?

30.2.3      Can the contradiction be justified?

30.3       Exploring options for next steps.

What are the timeframes for implementation?

31   Phase 1: Scope discussed/agreed by DPO Coalition and Senior Officials [19 October 2017]

32   Phase 2: Draw up a list of legislation to analyse by consulting with DPO Coalition, relevant disability sector organisations, and government agencies to identify legislation that, in their experience, contradicts the CRPD[November 2017]

33   Phase 3: Initial evaluation of whether the legislation identified contradicts the CRPD [December/ January 2018]

34   Phase 4: Engagement with key agencies to discuss initial findings [February/March 2018]

35   Phase 5: Explore options for next steps [March/April 2018]

36   Phase 6: Final report and advice to the DPO Coalition and Senior Officials [April 2018]

What resources will the lead and partners contribute?

37   ODI will provide staff time towards this work.

38   The DPO Coalition, and the lead DPO agency Blind Citizens NZ will provide time towards this work.

What governance arrangements are in place for this project?

39   Oversight of this project will be provided by:

39.1       Brian Coffey, Director, ODI

39.2       Rose Wilkinson, Blind Citizens NZ, DPO Coalition

40   Decisions on this action will be directed to the Disability Action Plan governance: the DPO Coalition and Senior Officials.

Reporting – key milestones/deliverables

41   Regular updates provided through the Disability Action Plan progress report.

42   A list of legislation produced [November 2017]

43   Initial evaluation of legislation complete [December/January 2018]

44   Engagement with key agencies to discuss initial findings [February/March 2018]

45   Options for next steps explored [March/April 2018]

46   Report to DPO Coalition and Senior Officials group on options to remedy contradictions [April 2018]

Risks

Risks

Mitigation

There is a risk that other   legislation that contradicts with the CRPD is missed in the identifying the   legislation stage.

There may be opportunity for   future legislation checks to be made under the Disability Action Plan where   resources allow, which could identify anything missed in the current work.

There is a risk that by   doing this stocktake, there are high expectations that amendments will be   made to legislation, in a timely manner, and that this will not be taken up   by government agencies due to resources and/or different priorities for   action.

Communications on this   action will be clear that this work is about identifying any contradictions in   legislation, and exploring options to remedy the contradiction. But that   changes are outside the scope of this action.

Impact – what are we trying to achieve?

47   How will we know if the action has achieved the intended result/outcomes?

47.1       We will have a shared understanding of a 2017 rights-based approach of what New Zealand legislation contradicts the CRPD.

48   How will these indicators be measured or evaluated?

48.1       A report will be produced, and jointly agreed between DPO Coalition and Senior Officials that summarises the issues. The report will include options for remedying contradictions in legislation where problems have been identified.

Evidence base

49   Documents from the government’s preparation for ratification of the CRPD in 2008 will be used as a starting point to this action.

50   There is support for a further analysis of New Zealand legislation in line with the CRPD in academic texts such as:

50.1       The Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons: A Remaining Dilemma for New Zealand? Sylvia Bell, Judy McGregor and Margaret Wilson (www.victoria.ac.nz/law/centres/nzcpl/publications/nz-journal-of-public-and-international-law/previous-issues/volume-132,-december-2015/Bell.pdf)

50.2       2017 Ministry of Health exploration of Mental Health Act relation to the CRPD and NZBORA.

50.3       Diesfeld, K. (2013) Compulsory Care, Rehabilitation and Risk: the Expected and Unexpected Issues raised by New Zealand's Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. In McSheery, B. & Freckleton, I (ed), Coercive Care: Rights, Law and Policy (pp. 241-257). Published by Routledge Milton Park, Abigndon, Oxon, England.

Related work

51   Actions that relate to this action explicitly include:

51.1       Action 2B: Building on work in action 2(a), identify better alternatives so that the Minimum Wage Exemption (MWE) process can be removed.

51.2       Action 7A: Ensure disabled people can exercise their legal capacity, including through recognition of supported decision making.

51.3       Action 7B: Explore the framework that protects the bodily integrity of disabled children and disabled adults against non-therapeutic medical procedures, including the issue of consent. This action will focus initially on options to protect against non-therapeutic sterilisation without the fully informed consent of the individual.

51.4       Action 8 A: Review the current care and support processes for disabled children who are (or are likely to be) subject to care under the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 to establish whether they are being treated equitably and fairly, and in their best interests and, if not, to provide advice on changes needed to legislation, operational policy, operational delivery and/or monitoring and enforcement.

51.5       Action 9D: Explore how the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 (the Mental Health Act) relates to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA) and the CRPD.

Appendix 1 – relevant agencies

1       Suggestions of stakeholders to contact to identify legislation include:

1.1 DPO coalition organisations

1.2 Human Rights Commission

1.3 Office of the Ombudsman

1.4 IHC New Zealand

1.5 CCS Disability Action

1.6 New Zealand Disability Support Network

1.7 Ministry of Education

1.8 Ministry of Social Development

1.9 Ministry of Health

1.10       Donald Beasley Institute

1.11       Complex Carers

1.12       Auckland Disability Law

1.13       Blind Foundation

1.14       National Foundation for the Deaf

2       Others to be identified.        

Appendix 2 - list of key words to look for in legislation when finding inconsistencies

1       How disabled people might be referred to in legislation, both as groups and by individual impairments:

1.1 Mental – mental, mental disorder

1.2 Physical - physical disorder,

1.3 Psychological, psychiatric

1.4 Blind – sight, vision, visual

1.5 Impair - impaired, impairment

1.6 Disabl - disabled, disabilities, disability

1.7 Handicapped

1.8 Special

1.9 Subnormal, abnormal

1.10       Intellectual

1.11       Incapacity, incompetence, competent, capacity

1.12       Deaf - hearing

1.13       Epilepsy

1.14       Disadvantage

1.15       Vulnerable

1.16       Insanity

1.17       Unsound mind

1.18       Welfare guardian

1.19       Property manager

1.20       Enduring power of attorney

1.21       Personal order

1.22       Invalid

1.23       Cripple

1.24       Retard – retardation, retarded

2       This is not an exhaustive list.

 

Appendix 3 – Template

Administered   by

Legislation   in scope

Section

Quote   exactly what the contradicting section says

What   did this section seek to achieve?

Why   does this section contradict the CRPD? Which CRPD article does it contradict?

What   are possible remedies?

 

Example   below.

 

 

E.g.   what was the purpose of the provision? Is it still relevant to today’s   circumstances?

 

E.g. Are   there alternatives to achieve the same goal? Should the same goal still be   achieved?

 

Ministry of Justice

Trustee Act 1956

Part 5, Section 51(2)(c)   Power of court to appoint new trustees

…the court may make an order   appointing a new trustee in substitution for a trustee who—

(c) is a mentally disordered   person within the meaning of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and   Treatment) Act 1992, or whose estate or any part thereof is subject to a   property order made under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act   1988…

To ensure that a trust can   be executed.

This provision was   presumably intended to ensure that a person who is not fit to be a trustee   can be removed by the court.

This is still relevant   today.

 

Article 5 – discrimination   based solely on the basis of an impairment (which is based on someone’s   status under the Mental Health Act or under the Protection of Personal and   Property Rights Act 1988).

General competency provision   rather than specifying the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and   Treatment) Act 1992 or the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act   1988.

The action outlined below will help achieve this outcome. This work was started under the existing Disability Action Plan.   

11. Priority: Promote disabled people participating in political and civic processes

11 A: DPOs to complete a stocktake of what are the areas needing the most attention and which will make the biggest difference to promote disabled people participating in political and civic processes. ODI will convene a discussion with DPOs and relevant government agencies to discuss priorities from the DPOs stocktake and identify possible actions.

On this page

Progress update

Scope of action

  1. Contributors/partners with lead – who is involved in this action?
  2. Implementation plan
  3. What is included in the scope of this action?
  4. What is excluded from the scope of this action?
  5. What are the timeframes for implementation?
  6. What resources will the lead and partners contribute?
  7. What governance arrangements are in place for this project?
  8. Reporting – key milestones/deliverables
  9. Impact – what are we trying to achieve?
  10. Evidence base
  11. Related work

Progress update to November 2017

Status: Completed August 2016

Action Milestones:

  • DPO's meetings July 2015- September/October 2015 [complete]
    • DPO's meet and complete draft stocktake with proposed solutions.
    • September/October 2015 DPO's meet with government agencies to identify possible actions.
    • Report from May 2016 meeting between DPO's, electorial commission and the Department of Internal Affairs drafted.

Lead: Office for Disability Issues

DPOs contact:  Blind Citizens

 

Scope of action

This scope of this action was approved by the governance meeting of the Chief Executives' Group on Disability Issues and Disabled People's Organisations on 19 June 2015.

Action: DPOs to complete a stocktake of what are the areas needing the most attention and which will make the biggest difference to promote disabled people participating in political and civic processes. ODI will convene a discussion with DPOs and relevant government agencies to discuss priorities from the DPOs stocktake and identify possible actions.

Lead: DPOs (Blind Citizens NZ)

1  Contributors/partners with lead – who is involved in this action?

All DPOs will be asked to contribute.

Government agencies that could be involved include:

  • Office for Disability Issues
  • Electoral Commission
  • Department of Internal Affairs.

2  Implementation plan

What is the purpose of this action and how will it be implemented?

This action ultimately seeks to significantly improve the level of participation by disabled people in political life. This is covered by Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This includes disabled people engaging with and voting in national and local elections on the same basis as everyone else, taking part in national and local political processes, and taking a full part in public affairs, including forming and being represented by DPOs.

The first step is for DPOs to together identify the areas needing the most attention and which will make the biggest difference in reaching this objective. A clear list of priorities, along with suggested practical solutions, will be identified that will input into the broader discussion to be convened by ODI.

Agreement will then be reached between government agencies and DPOs on practical steps and timeframes for implementation.

3  What is included in the scope of this action?

Identifying existing opportunities and developing practical strategies to overcome barriers that limit the involvement or performance of disabled people in the following areas:

  • Casting a fully informed confidential vote in national elections.
  • Casting a fully informed confidential vote in local elections.
  • Becoming active in political parties and standing for election to Parliament.
  • Becoming active in local politics and possibly standing for election to a local authority such as a regional or city council, a local community board, disability advisory group, district health board, school board of trustees, etc.
  • Holding office in an elected national or local political position.
  • Joining and participating fully in non-government organisations concerned with the political life of New Zealand.
  • Forming organisations that have the capacity to effectively represent the voice of disabled people at local, national and international level.

4  What is excluded from the scope of this action?

None.

5  What are the timeframes for implementation?

This action covers activity from June 2015 to October 2015.

6  What resources will the lead and partners contribute?

DPOs will use their own resources to involve their members as appropriate in order to examine the issues and prepare for a joint discussion with other DPOs.

DPOs will allocate half a day at a future meeting of DPOs (suggestion is the first meeting of the 2015/2016 financial year) at which they will complete the stocktake which will be the input to the discussion to be convened by ODI.

It may be necessary for DPOs to give further attention to this at a second meeting of DPOs before the stocktake can be completed.

The Office for Disability Issues will convene the discussion at a time before the end of October 2015 to involve DPOs and other government agencies as identified. This discussion will be held in conjunction with a scheduled meeting of DPOs to be determined.

The Office for Disability Issues will dedicate staff time to support and facilitate the discussion.

7  What governance arrangements are in place for this project?

Oversight of this project will be provided by:

  • Blind Citizens NZ
  • Office for Disability Issues

8  Reporting – key milestones/deliverables

What are the key milestones (what activity will be achieved by when) – how will progress on the action be tracked and reported via the Office for Disability Issues to the quarterly governance group meetings?

  • June 2015: action scope approved
  • July 2015: DPOs have first meeting and possibly complete the stocktake of issues and proposed solutions.
  • August 2015: DPOs possibly meet for a second time to complete the stocktake.
  • September/October 2015: Discussion involving DPOs and other government agencies completed and possible actions identified.

9  Impact – what are we trying to achieve?

What are indicators of the action’s intended result/outcomes desired?

A set of actions will have been identified that the Government is willing to implement without delay and which disabled people genuinely believe will significantly improve our ability to fully participate in civic and political processes on the same basis as everyone else.

How will these indicators be measured or evaluated?

DPOs will be actively involved in monitoring the implementation of the agreed actions over the agreed timeframes.

10  Evidence base

Is there any research or information (whether qualitative or quantitative) informing this action?

Report of last year's select committee inquiry into the accessibility of Parliament.

Concluding Observations and recommendations from the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Is there any research or information which represents the lived experience of disability?

Recommendations concerning Article 29 from the Independent Monitoring Mechanism.

11  Related work

Is there any other work in the Disability Action Plan 2014-2018 that this action relates to or which contributes to this action? None.

Is there any other work (outside of the Disability Action Plan) that this action connects with or which contributes to this action? None.

Tell us what you think

Page last updated: