Comparing New Zealand parties on disability policy – 2026 election

For someone with a mobility impairment who rents and wants to remain independently housed, three questions are particularly important when comparing political parties:

1. Funding: Will disability support funding keep pace with the actual cost of living and the support people need?
2. Eligibility: Who qualifies for support, how are needs assessed, and can people retain assistance when their circumstances change?
3. Individual choice: Can disabled people decide how their support is delivered, who provides it, and how they organise their daily lives?

There is also a fourth issue worth examining: whether accessible transport, housing and community services are treated as essential parts of independent living, rather than separate issues.

I'll distinguish between established government decisions, parties' published policies and proposals that still need confirmation. This matters because the 2026 election campaign may bring new policies, and a party's past record is not necessarily its future commitment.

1. Comparing the main parties

The following comparison uses reporting published up to 30 October 2026, including questions put directly to the parties by disability-focused publication The D*List, and analysis by CCS Disability Action.

Disability support, rights and individual choice

Party	Funding and eligibility	Choice, control and rights
National	Emphasises financial sustainability and consistency of Disability Support Services (DSS). Has committed $1.1 billion over five years to disability support services.	Supports the Disability Support Services Act and the 2026–2030 Disability Strategy. Has not committed to stronger disability rights legislation.
Labour	Has made commitments to improve income support and retain support for disabled people and carers. Promises to end annual benefit renewals for people with verified permanent disabilities.	Would repeal and rewrite the DSS legislation in partnership with disabled people, carers and representative organisations. Supports Enabling Good Lives and stronger human rights protections.
Green Party	Proposes more accessible and timely income support covering disability-related living and medical costs, regardless of relationship status or cause of disability.	Supports enforceable disability rights legislation, individualised benefits and the Enabling Good Lives approach.
ACT	Emphasises targeting funding according to assessed individual needs. Proposes independent medical certification for health and disability benefits and reassessment arrangements.	Supports greater control over services and individual choice, while emphasising personal responsibility and financial sustainability.
Te Pāti Māori	Supports greater investment in disability services and increased benefit levels, with whānau-centred support.	Supports Māori-led disability services, Enabling Good Lives, self-determination and rights-based legislation.
New Zealand First	Has not provided detailed disability-specific funding commitments in the party responses examined.	Supported the DSS legislation. Has previously introduced an accessibility standards bill, but has not provided a comprehensive disability rights programme.
The Opportunities Party (TOP)	Proposes a Citizen's Income of up to $370 a week, with additional disability support and needs-based top-ups.	Emphasises financial independence and simpler access to support, but has not provided detailed answers to the disability policy questionnaire.

Sources: The D*List – disability policy comparison, disability funding comparison, and CCS Disability Action's 2026 analysis. Party policies, simplified: Disability policyParty policies, simplified: Disability fundingElection 2026: Political Parties Policy Analysis

There are some important distinctions behind this table.

National: Its position is centred on maintaining and improving the existing system. It argues that the new legislation creates consistency, transparency and financial stability. It says the legislation does not itself change existing eligibility or entitlements.

Labour: Its central proposal is a different legislative approach, with disabled people involved in designing the system. This is significant if you are concerned about who gets to decide what support you receive.

Greens: Their proposals place particular emphasis on disability as a rights and equality issue, rather than solely a matter of funding allocation.

ACT: Its approach emphasises individual needs and targeted support, but its proposed independent medical certification and reassessment requirements are particularly relevant if you are concerned about maintaining eligibility.

Te Pāti Māori: Its approach puts collective wellbeing, whānau, Māori leadership and self-determination at the centre of disability support.

NZ First and TOP: There is less detailed information to assess their disability-specific proposals. An absence of a published commitment should not automatically be interpreted as opposition to a policy.

Party policies, simplified: Disability policyParty policies, simplified: Disability fundingElection 2026: Political Parties Policy Analysis

2. What these differences mean for independent living

For your circumstances, I would pay particular attention to the following areas.

A. Funding that allows you to live independently

Disability funding is not just about paying for personal care. It can determine whether you can:

• Get assistance with shopping, cooking, cleaning and personal care.
• Attend medical appointments and community activities.
• Pay for disability-related expenses.
• Obtain equipment and mobility assistance.
• Maintain a home without relying excessively on family or friends.

The National-led government has made changes to flexible funding which took effect in April 2026. These removed purchasing rules for flexible funding from 1 April, giving eligible recipients more choice over how they spend their funding. Choice in Community Living retains its purchasing rules. Improving assessment, allocation and flexible funding

The political question is whether parties will maintain this flexibility, expand it and provide sufficient funding to make meaningful choices possible.

B. Eligibility and reassessment

This is particularly important if your mobility impairment is permanent or long-term.

Consider whether a party would:

• Recognise permanent impairments without requiring unnecessary repeated assessments.
• Provide predictable long-term funding.
• Avoid making people repeatedly prove an established disability.
• Ensure that changes in personal circumstances do not automatically remove essential assistance.
• Make assessments accessible and consistent throughout New Zealand.

Two proposals are particularly relevant:

• Labour has promised to end annual benefit renewals for people with verified permanent disabilities.
• ACT proposes independent medical certification and phased reassessment arrangements.

These are different approaches to determining continuing eligibility. Election 2026: Political Parties Policy AnalysisParty policies, simplified: Disability funding

C. Individual choice and control

The Enabling Good Lives approach is particularly relevant here.

It emphasises:

• Self-determination.
• Person-centred support.
• Ordinary life opportunities.
• Relationships and community participation.
• Flexible support that responds to individual needs.

Parties differ in how explicitly they commit to this approach and how they would protect it in legislation.

If you want to choose your own support workers, organise your own assistance and decide how to use your allocated funding, ask parties whether those choices would be legally protected or simply allowed under current administrative rules.

Party policies, simplified: Disability policyImproving assessment, allocation and flexible funding

3. Accessible transport: an important difference

For someone with a mobility impairment, accessible transport can determine whether independent living is actually possible.

One particularly relevant issue is the Total Mobility Scheme.

Total Mobility taxi subsidy

75%

Previous subsidy

65%

From 1 July 2026

The subsidy reduction means eligible users pay a greater share of the fare, subject to scheme limits and local arrangements.

The parties' published positions include:

Party	Transport proposal
National	Retain the 65% subsidy; review provider standards and consider a national concession and free companion fares.
Labour	Cap weekly public transport fares at $20 in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, and $10 elsewhere.
Greens	Restore the 75% Total Mobility subsidy, increase accessible vehicle availability and provide free public transport for Total Mobility users.
ACT	Supports retaining 65%, emphasising affordability and financial sustainability.
Te Pāti Māori	Make public transport free within five years, prioritising disabled people in a staged rollout.
NZ First	No direct response to the Total Mobility questions.
TOP	Has publicly supported free public transport, but did not directly answer the disability transport questionnaire.

Party policies, simplified: TransportElection 2026: Political Parties Policy Analysis

An important distinction: Free buses and trains do not necessarily solve the transport needs of someone who cannot access ordinary public transport. Taxi subsidies, wheelchair-accessible vehicles, companion fares and reliable door-to-door services may be more important.

You may therefore want to examine Total Mobility separately from general public transport fares.

4. Accessible rental housing and remaining independent

Because you rent, housing policy deserves particular attention.

You need more than an affordable rental. You need a home that accommodates your mobility needs, allows you to remain independent and does not require you to move whenever your circumstances change.

The parties' reported positions on accessible housing include:

Party	Accessible housing and renting
National	Does not propose restoring the 15% accessible public housing target. Supports developing clearer accessibility definitions and continuing initiatives such as Access Activator.
Labour	Proposes increasing the accessible Kāinga Ora new-build target to 25%.
Greens	Proposes universal design standards for public and private housing, restoring the 15% accessible public housing target, rent caps and ending no-cause evictions.
Te Pāti Māori	Supports reinstating and expanding accessible public housing targets.
ACT	Emphasises increasing housing supply and reducing development barriers rather than setting a public housing accessibility quota.
NZ First	Has not provided a specific accessible housing commitment in the questionnaire.
TOP	Has expressed support for removing housing barriers and building homes accessible to everyone.

Party policies, simplified: HousingHow do parties rate on their disability policies?

For your situation, I would investigate three specific questions:

1. Will a party increase the supply of accessible public housing and ensure that disabled renters can actually access it?
2. Will it strengthen protections against landlords refusing reasonable disability-related modifications?
3. Will it help renters afford the additional costs associated with accessible accommodation?

The second question is especially important. An accessible property may still be unsuitable if you cannot safely install a grab rail, ramp or other necessary modification.

5. Disability funding: an important difference to examine

There is another funding issue worth knowing about.

The D*List's October 2026 investigation found that the Government removed the ring-fencing around the Lottery Individuals with Disabilities Fund and disestablished its specialist assessment committee.

The parties' responses were:

• Greens and Te Pāti Māori would restore the specialist committee.
• Labour opposed its disestablishment but did not confirm whether it would restore the committee.
• ACT said it would judge the replacement structure by whether disabled people could still access appropriate funding.
• National indicated it was not considering further changes.
• NZ First and TOP did not provide answers to the funding questions.

Party policies, simplified: Disability funding

This is worth considering if you might need assistance with equipment, mobility-related expenses or other disability-related costs that are not adequately covered by your existing support.

6. Questions to put to parties before voting

The Disabled Persons Assembly, CCS Disability Action and Your Way Kia Roha have also developed a 10-question disability election questionnaire.

It covers disability rights, choice and control, benefits, accessibility legislation, employment and education. Disability Scorecard for 2026 General Election » Disabled Persons Assembly NZ

For your circumstances, I would add these six questions to any candidate meeting or party discussion:

1. Long-term funding: Will you guarantee predictable disability support funding that keeps pace with inflation and the actual cost of living?

2. Permanent disability: Will people with permanent mobility impairments be protected from unnecessary reassessments and repeated eligibility applications?

3. Individual choice: Will I retain control over how my disability funding is spent and who provides my support?

4. Accessible transport: Will you restore or increase the Total Mobility subsidy and ensure sufficient wheelchair-accessible transport is available?

5. Rental security: Will you strengthen accessible rental housing requirements and protections for tenants who need disability-related modifications?

6. Independent living: Will you fund support that allows disabled people to live independently in their own homes rather than requiring residential care or dependence on family?

I would particularly look for specific commitments, funding amounts, implementation dates and enforceable rights, rather than general statements of support.

7. Where to check the evidence yourself

These are useful New Zealand disability-sector resources:

• CCS Disability Action – 2026 party policy analysis – analysis across housing, welfare, health and accessibility.
• The D*List – disability policy – party responses on disability rights and legislation.
• The D*List – disability funding – funding and welfare comparisons.
• The D*List – transport – Total Mobility and accessible public transport.
• Disabled Persons Assembly NZ – disability rights and election advocacy.
• Disability Support Services – current government support arrangements and eligibility information.

8. A practical way to assess the parties

Rather than looking for a party that makes the most promises, you could assess each party against the things that would make the biggest difference to your independence.

Your personal assessment priorities

Adjust the importance of each issue. This is a tool for clarifying your priorities, not a party rating.

Adequate, predictable disability funding

Funding that covers essential support and disability-related costs.

Important

Fair and secure eligibility

Long-term recognition of permanent disability without unnecessary reassessment.

Important

Choice and control

Freedom to decide how support is organised and delivered.

Important

Accessible transport

Affordable taxis, mobility vehicles and accessible public transport.

Important

Accessible rental housing

More suitable homes and better protections for disabled tenants.

Important

Independent living rights

Enforceable rights, participation and support in the community.

Important

Your highest priorities

Reset priorities

My overall observation

The most substantial differences in the published policies concern:

• The legal framework: National and ACT support the new DSS legislation, whereas Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori oppose it and propose different rights-based approaches.
• Funding and eligibility: ACT emphasises tighter assessment and financial sustainability; the Greens and Te Pāti Māori propose broader income support; Labour proposes changes to benefit renewals and disability legislation.
• Individual choice: Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori explicitly connect their approaches to Enabling Good Lives and self-determination, while ACT emphasises individual control within a targeted funding model.
• Everyday independence: The Greens, Labour and Te Pāti Māori have made particularly identifiable commitments around accessible housing or transport, although their proposals differ.

These are differences in policy direction, not guarantees of what a future government will deliver. Coalition agreements, budgets and implementation will matter.

One final point: Your ability to remain independent should not be measured only by the disability funding you receive. It also depends on whether you can afford to rent an accessible home, get to appointments, travel independently and choose the support that works for you.

Your vote can take all those interconnected issues into account, rather than treating disability support as just one isolated policy area.