When Is a Restrictive Practice… Not a Restrictive Practice?

Navigating a Critical Grey Area in Disability Support. How is your organisation addressing secondary impacts of restrictive practices?

In disability services, compliance frameworks are designed to protect the rights of people with disability while ensuring safety. But what happens when those frameworks don’t quite align with real-world practice?

A growing challenge across shared supported accommodation is the “secondary impact” of restrictive practices, where one participant’s authorised restriction unintentionally limits the rights of another.

The Grey Area

Under the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld), restrictive practices must be:

• Clearly defined, and

• Applied in response to a person’s behaviour of harm, with appropriate authorisation.

Similarly, the NDIS (Restrictive Practices and Behaviour Support) Rules 2018 define regulated restrictive practices including environmental restraint, such as limiting access to items or spaces.

But here’s the tension:

• If a person’s access is restricted not because of their own behaviour, but due to another participant’s Behaviour Support Plan (BSP)…

Then legally, it may not meet the threshold of a restrictive practice for that individual. Yet in practice?

• Their freedom is still restricted.

Compliance vs Reality

This creates a significant gap between:

• Legal classification (what is formally recognised as a restrictive practice), and

• Lived experience (what the person is actually subjected to).

Regulators may advise:

• This is not a reportable or authorised restrictive practice for the impacted person, and instead, providers should develop an impact statement and mitigation strategies.

However, this approach can risk:

• Minimising the human rights impact, and

• Overlooking the need for structured oversight and reduction strategies.

Why This Matters

At Lucid Minds, we believe this grey area is more than a technicality, it’s a safeguarding issue.

Even where a restriction is:

• Indirect,

• Unauthorised, or

• Applied due to another person’s needs…

It still limits autonomy, access, and dignity.

And under the NDIS framework, all restrictive practices — direct or indirect — must be:

• Reduced, and

• Eliminated over time.

Best Practice Approach

So, what should providers do?

1. Acknowledge the restriction
   Even if it is not formally classified, recognise its real impact.

2. Document within behaviour support frameworks
   Ensure the person’s experience is captured — not just in an impact statement, but within broader planning and review processes.

3. Collaborate across supports
   Work with co-tenant BSPs and service models to minimise environmental limitations.

4. Prioritise elimination strategies
   Restrictions, even indirect ones, should never become “business as usual.”

The Takeaway

Just because something isn’t formally defined as a restrictive practice, doesn’t mean it isn’t restrictive.

As the sector continues to evolve, addressing these grey areas is essential to ensuring that compliance doesn’t come at the cost of human rights.