Jonathan Godfrey, National President

According to the latest Household Disability Survey released by Stats NZ in February, an estimated one in six New Zealanders are disabled. This is, of course, an estimate – just as it was ten years ago when the figure was considerably different.

Back then, the estimate was 24% – one in four – or about 1.1 million New Zealanders. We used that figure year after year for a decade until the next estimate became available in 2025.

So, was that an urban myth? Did something go wrong with the way disability data was collected and analysed in 2013–2015 when the last Household Disability Survey was conducted?

The reality is that much has changed in the way we gather and interpret disability data. Over the past ten years, I have been involved in many of these developments. The way the New Zealand Census asks about impairments, conditions, or disabilities has fundamentally changed almost every year since disability-related questions were first introduced in 1996. In fact, only the 2018 and 2023 Censuses used the same core set of six questions – the Washington Group Short Set. However, in 2023, an additional question was introduced to capture people whose impairments or conditions were not covered within that framework. The way people answer the questions in the Census affects the likelihood of being included in the Household Disability Survey.

Back in 2015, many people felt that the 24% figure was a little high. Some disability sector advocates worried that such a large percentage trivialised disability – that it made it seem commonplace and included many people who did not experience the disadvantages that come with being disabled in New Zealand. Others, however, saw the large number as a crucial reminder to decision-makers: disabled people were a significant fraction of the population and could not be ignored.

Even with the latest estimate of one in six, I would argue that disabled people remain a substantial part of New Zealand’s population. That is how I choose to interpret the latest prevalence statistics. Other people will wish to dig deeper, and might, for example, focus on the different prevalence rates for different ethnic groups.

That said, I am deeply concerned that too much focus is placed on the prevalence of disability rather than on understanding its impact. We now have an abundance of disability data that clearly shows disabled people experience poorer life outcomes than their non-disabled peers. Whether we are one in six or one in four does not change the stark reality reflected in official statistics. While the Household Disability Survey presents the latest snapshot of some issues specific to disabled people, other Stats NZ surveys canvas issues affecting all New Zealanders and then look at the difference between disabled and non-disabled people. In theory, we ought to see how the equity gaps between disabled and non-disabled people are tracking over time.

The 2025 estimate – based on data collected in late 2023 and analysed throughout 2024 represents a methodological improvement over previous efforts. We cannot realistically compare today’s disability prevalence data with that from ten years ago. It would be like comparing apples to pears. Having said that, the big change in prevalence has not been reflected in the prevalence of people who are blind or sufficiently low-vision to meet the criteria chosen by Stats NZ. I hasten to add this criteria differs from the primary service provider definition, and does not link to other formal definitions accepted in New Zealand or internationally for the provision of services.

A major criticism of disability data collection is that some people feel the disability status indicator does not fit their personal circumstances. However, this should not be a concern. A statistical tool designed to estimate disability prevalence should never be used to determine an individual’s eligibility for services or support.

Beyond statistics, I am increasingly troubled by the rise of urban myths – especially when it comes to who creates them and how they spread. There is a quote, often attributed to Winston Churchill: “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has time to put its pants on.”

The more authoritative someone sounds, the more likely their opinion is treated as fact. We often hear phrases like “the reality is…” or “in actual fact…” – statements that assert a sense of certainty, regardless of whether they are based on evidence.

This week (yet again) I heard a news item which mentioned that a person was “legally blind”. I struggle with this term because there is no single legal definition of blindness in New Zealand. Different Acts of Parliament and associated regulations use different criteria. The phrase persists and has a life, even though it is relatively easy to present two different legal definitions for blindness.

In contrast, I also see meaningless assertions. Many email messages I receive today are automatically tagged with “In Confidence”, a label inserted by software rather than the sender. These disclaimers appear so frequently that they become meaningless because they are used whether the email is about a confidential document or just someone’s coffee preference. This reminds me of the classic children’s story, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. The boy cries wolf so often that, when he finally tells the truth, no one believes him. **I used this story a lot when my children were young to teach them about the importance of telling the truth, and the consequences of misleading people.**

The greatest danger of urban myths is that when misinformation is repeated often enough, it becomes difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. As blind people, how do we verify the accuracy of claims, many of which will come from opinionated individuals who have an agenda? How easily can we tell statements of fact from assertions made in order to convince us to respond in a particular fashion?

How do we know whether what we hear or read is true, especially if we do not have access to factual information because it is not easily accessed in a form we can read? And if we rely on the internet, we risk relying on resources that are themselves based on urban myths.

The current urban myth I wish to pick on is that Generative AI is about to change our lives and that it will automatically lead to improved outcomes for us. Some Artificial Intelligence tools do show value for us, but there is also a huge danger that the AI gives us a completely misleading impression. These are called hallucinations.

I suspect many of us struggle with information provided on product packaging. I enjoy browsing online, but I would shop online more often if I could be confident that product descriptions were accurate and complete. Many of the products I want to buy lack sufficient detail, so I have to visit a store to check them in person. Once I am confident despite a product’s inadequate description, I can buy it online. I’ve tested some AI solutions to this problem **and it has at times offered me some very interesting hallucinations**. While I have hopes that improvements will come along one day, I also can’t see that day coming very soon.

There are many myths about disability, including those we create ourselves. I often hear people say, “Blind people can’t do that.”

But if I know a blind person who can do that particular task, then I have to wonder – is this person a rare exception with an extraordinary skillset, or are there more blind people out there who are also capable but simply overlooked?

Take chopsticks for example. I’ve frequently heard the claim that blind people cannot use them, but I can. So, is this myth true, or is it just another case of assuming limitations where none exist? I think I don’t know anyone in NZ who is totally blind and uses chopsticks willingly or comfortably. Should I accept the claim that we can’t use chopsticks? Should I decide that my unusual skill is somehow exceptional? Thankfully, I have met plenty of blind people from Asia who use chopsticks every day, so I do know that blind people can use them.

Ultimately, myths, whether about disability statistics or everyday abilities can shape perceptions in ways that are not always helpful or accurate. It is up to us to understand them and challenge the claims we believe are misleading or likely to diminish our right to live in our own country on an equitable basis with all other New Zealanders.