10 September 2026

Supported Decision-Making in Aotearoa: Upcoming Changes to the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988.

The Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (PPPR) has long provided a framework in Aotearoa New Zealand to support individuals who are unable to manage their own personal or financial affairs.  It provides mechanisms for others to make decisions on their behalf where necessary. While this framework has offered important protections, a recent review by Te Aka Matua o te Ture Law Commission, identified the need for significant reforms.  It sounds like the Government is listening too.

How does the PPPR work? 

Under the PPPR, individuals (known as donors) may put enduring powers of attorney (EPAs) into place.  These documents appoint an attorney to make decisions on their behalf regarding:

• Property; and
• Personal care and welfare.

The Act sets out the scope of these powers, including when a donor can elect for EPAs take effect, the types of decisions attorneys may make, and any consultation requirements.  A key feature is that EPAs continue to operate, or come into effect, when the donor subsequently loses mental capacity.

Where no EPA is in place, the PPPR provides that the Family Court of New Zealand may appoint the following decision makers on an individual’s behalf:

• A welfare guardian: to make decisions about personal care and welfare; and
• A property manager: to manage financial and property matters.

The Act affects some of the most vulnerable people, so ensuring their rights are protected is essential.  The recent review highlights that the current framework could be improved to better safeguard their interests.

Why reform is needed 

Supporting autonomy rather than silencing Donors. 

The Criticism
The current framework places a strong emphasis on substitute decision-making when a person is deemed to lack capacity.  This can leave individuals feeling silenced and restricted in how they live their lives.  The Law Commission were of the view that the Act does not adequately recognise that decision-making ability may be only partially impaired or support participation where possible.

Suggested Reform
The review recommends adopting a supported decision-making model.  This includes a formal supporter role to help individuals make decisions themselves and participate meaningfully in decisions made on their behalf. When substitute decision-making is required, decisions should reflect the person’s will and preferences rather than being based solely on “best interests.”

Aligning with Modern Disability Rights 

The Criticism

The review outlines that one of the driving forces of change to the PPPR is the need for the new Act to reflect the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted in 2006.  Given these (relatively) new obligations, the PPPR is widely regarded as misaligned with modern disability rights.

Suggested Reform
In response, the review recommends that the new Act adopt a rights-based approach.  This should recognise that people with disabilities are entitled to exercise legal capacity equally with others and should provide appropriate support to enable this.  This approach moves away from a purely substitute decision-making model and towards one that promotes participation in decisions affecting the individual.

Recognising Tikanga and Cultural Considerations 

The Criticism
The review notes that the PPPR does not explicitly reference tikanga.  While Family Court decisions have acknowledged that tikanga principles should be considered, there is no legislative guidance as to when or how such principles should be applied.  This creates inconsistency and uncertainty in decision-making processes where cultural values are relevant.

Suggested Reform                                                                                                                                                                           

In response, the review recommends that reform should expressly require social and cultural considerations, including tikanga, to be taken into account when the Family Court appoints a representative.  It may be beneficial for the new Act to allow for the appointment of more than one representative where this would support collective decision-making, such as involving whānau or hapū.

The Government’s response

The New Zealand Government has now accepted in principle the Law Commission’s recommendation to repeal and replace the PPPR, which is promising.  Legislation could of course take some time however.

We are here to help

While we await any new legislation and these broader issues continue to evolve, if you have any questions or would like general advice as to how this may impact you or your loved ones, our Asset Planning Team is here to guide you through the process.