This article is part of a series advocating for the rights of disabled people, contributed by Dr Pamela J. MacNeill, Managing Director, Disability Responsiveness New Zealand Ltd: https://drnz.co.nz/

admin@drnz.co.nz

Inequitable library services

Public libraries are supposed to represent equal access to knowledge, culture, and community participation. However, when a council provides library services in ways that exclude disabled residents, it undermines that purpose and creates a two-tier system of access. In Upper Hutt, library services are currently delivered through two physical library buildings and a mobile library service. While the existence of a mobile service appears positive on the surface, the reality is that the library bus is not wheelchair accessible. This creates a serious inequity for disabled people, particularly wheelchair users and others with mobility impairments.

This omission is significant because accessibility is not an optional extra for disabled people; it is fundamental to equal participation.

The problem becomes even more concerning when disabled residents are effectively told to “just go to one of the buildings instead.” That response ignores the realities many disabled people face. Accessible transport is not always available. Some people cannot independently travel long distances. Others rely on support people, specialised transport services, or carefully planned journeys that require significant time, money, and energy. For some disabled people, the entire purpose of a mobile library service is to remove those barriers by bringing services closer to where people live.

A mobile library that excludes wheelchair users and people with mobility impairments defeats its own stated purpose. The council describes the service as one that brings “the library closer to you” and connects communities that may otherwise struggle to access library resources. Yet wheelchair users are excluded from that closer access. Instead of receiving an equivalent service, they are expected to travel elsewhere. This is not equality. It is segregation by inconvenience.

The inequity is particularly stark because mobility barriers disproportionately affect disabled people living further from central services. A nondisabled resident can board the library bus at a local stop and access books, staff assistance, and community engagement within their own neighbourhood. A wheelchair user may be unable to board at all. They are then expected to organise transport to a permanent branch instead. In practical terms, the disabled person experiences a more difficult, more expensive, and more exhausting version of the same service. This reflects a broader societal problem in which disabled people are expected to adapt themselves to inaccessible systems rather than systems being designed inclusively from the beginning. Accessibility is often treated as an afterthought, with disabled people expected to accept substitute arrangements. However, substitute access is rarely equal access. Being told to go somewhere else because the standard service excludes you sends a damaging message that disabled participation is secondary.

New Zealand has clear commitments regarding disability rights and inclusion. The principles underpinning accessibility are reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which New Zealand has ratified. The convention recognises the right of disabled people to participate fully in cultural life, access information, and engage equally in community services. Public libraries are part of that cultural and civic infrastructure. When a council provides a service that some residents cannot physically enter, it risks breaching both the spirit and intent of those obligations. These rights are also reflected in the New Zealand Disability Strategy.

Furthermore, There is a dignity issue involved. Disabled people should not have to repeatedly explain why inaccessible services are unacceptable. They should not be placed in the position of asking for exceptions or workarounds simply to receive what others already enjoy routinely. A wheelchair-accessible mobile library should be regarded as a basic expectation in a modern public facing service, not a luxury feature. After all, disabled people pay rates too, either directly or through rental expenditure.

The council may argue that the permanent library buildings are accessible, but this misses the point entirely. Equality is not achieved merely because one accessible option exists somewhere in the city. If a mobile service is offered to the general population, then disabled residents should be able to use that same service. Otherwise, disabled people are excluded from the convenience, local connection, and spontaneity the service provides to others.

Inaccessible mobile services can contribute to social isolation. Libraries are more than book-lending facilities. They are community hubs that support literacy, lifelong learning, social connection, and civic participation. For some disabled people, particularly those facing transport barriers or isolation, the arrival of a mobile library can be an important community event. Denying access to that service reinforces exclusion rather than belonging.

The issue is not simply about physical infrastructure. It is about values. A genuinely inclusive council would ask: “How do we ensure everyone can use this service equally?” rather than “Can disabled people use something else instead?” Universal design requires planning from the outset, including wheelchair lifts or ramps, accessible interior layouts and critically, consultation with disabled residents before services are implemented or upgraded.

Upper Hutt’s own promotional material celebrates the mobile library service as a cherished community resource that connects people across the city. If the service is truly intended for the whole community, then disabled residents must be included in that vision. Anything less creates a hierarchy of citizenship where nondisabled residents receive full local access while disabled people are expected to settle for alternatives.

An equitable solution would involve ensuring that all mobile library vehicles are fully wheelchair accessible and designed according to universal access principles. Consultation with disabled residents and disability organisations should be central to that process. Accessibility should not be retrofitted only after complaints arise; it should be embedded from the beginning.

A “thank you” to Dr Pamela J. MacNeill, Managing Director, Disability Responsiveness New Zealand Ltd for sending this article to The Upper Hutt Connection.

08/06/26