50. The Ministry of Health website refers to FASD as “physical, cognitive, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disabilities that can result from alcohol exposure during pregnancy. There is no typical FASD profile, however, common issues may include intellectual and developmental disabilities, attention deficits, poor social understanding, hyperactivity and learning disabilities.” 51. When FASD is assessed through the definitions set out below the basis on which this exclusion occurs is completely perplexing to individuals and families and seems utterly arbitrary. 52. The New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993 defines disability as “a physical, intellectual or psychological disability or impairment, loss of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function, reliance on assistance or illness” 53. Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities references disability as, “those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”; 54. The eligibility criteria for Ministry of Health funded Disability Support Services references disability as: • physical, intellectual or sensory disability (or a combination of these) which: o is likely to continue for at least 6 months o limits their ability to function independently, to the extent that ongoing support is required. 55. The Ministry of Health will also fund DSS for people with: • some neurological conditions that result in permanent disabilities • some developmental disabilities in children and young people, such as autism • physical, intellectual or sensory disability that co-exists with a health condition and/or injury. 56. Ostensibly, FASD meets all these criteria. It is therefore untenable in our view that those with FASD alone are prevented from accessing DSS. 57. Being eligible for DSS does not mean that people with FASD will have all their needs met. Amending the eligibility criteria for those with FASD would not automatically result in the person having unlimited access to resources, therefore inferences to “opening the floodgates” in some meetings we have attended are exaggerated, not to mention this being an inadequate response to a potential breach of human rights. 58. Simply, changing the eligibility criteria would allow a person with a diagnosis of FASD (regardless of the presence of an intellectual disability) to access such funded supports once they are assessed as needing them. We acknowledge that work is needed on developing additional resources and supports for those with FASD (as discussed with officials), but this need not preclude people accessing existing supports now and should be considered in light of the cost benefit of early timely intervention. A Human Rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi Approach 59. We recommend a human rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi approach be taken to protecting and promoting the rights of those living with FASD and their whānau. 8