News
The term ‘chemical restraint’ has been in the spotlight recently as the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the Future Generations) Bill 2026, seeks to redefine the definition of permanent disability to limit who can access the Scheme. In doing so, the proposed change would have individuals with disability prove they have undergone “all forms of appropriate treatment,” including chemical restraint, before they become eligible to be an NDIS participant.
What is a chemical restraint?
The NDIS Restrictive Practices and Behaviour Support Rules 2018, defines chemical restraint as the use of medication or chemical substance for the primary purpose of influencing a person's behaviour, rather than to treat a health condition.
However, the final report of the Disability Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability criticised this, noting that the distinction between restraint and mental health treatment is not easily distinguishable.
Monash University academic, Dr Brent Hayward, has a long history within the mental heath and disability sector, having worked as a mental health nurse for people with intellectual disability, and also in government regulation of disability services before the introduction of the NDIS.
He argues that the NDIS defines chemical restraint in a way that many medical prescribers either ignore or find impossible to implement.
“We've got this situation where prescribers are responsible for interpreting it, but they don't want to interpret or they reject it. So we can't even get past this issue of…what is chemical restraint, which becomes very unworkable in practice,” Dr Hayward explains.
How is chemical restraint misused?
Findings from the Disability Royal Commission revealed that while 60% of people with intellectual disability are treated with chemical restraints, only half have been diagnosed with a relevant mental health condition.
Inclusion Australia is the national peak body representing people with an intellectual disability in Australia, which advocates for the rights and health of the community, particularly regarding the elimination of restrictive practices
CEO of Inclusion Australia, Maeve Kennedy, says an alarming number of psychotropic drugs are misused as a form of chemical restraint for individuals with intellectual disabilities.
She argues that these drugs are often used to suppress behaviours triggered by distressing environments rather than to treat genuine medical conditions.
“The use of psychotropic medication is higher than it should be in the disability community,” Ms Kennedy says. “we know that behaviour is communication. If people are in situations where they are not happy... when there is abuse and neglect, and they don't have another way to communicate, that often comes out in behaviours.”
“It is the environment that somebody is in that is causing such high levels of distress... instead of addressing the underlying concern, the behaviour is then effectively sedated or medicated out of existence.”
For those with intellectual and developmental disabilities, involvement in decisions regarding the use of chemical restraint on the individual is often non-existent.
When experiences of chemical restraints are studied, people with disabilities who are able to verbally communicate are the ones included in the research, Dr Hayward explains.
“People with disabilities who cannot verbally communicate are excluded, so we don't know what their experiences are.”
Dr Hayward says the people he has spoken with over the years who are subjected to these practices describe the experience as being “punished or controlled.”
“I think that is very telling in itself. People who did talk about their experiences said that [it] was stressful and painful, and it made them feel a lot of different emotions, everything from fear to anger to desperation and sadness.”
Are chemical restraints an abuse of human rights?
There is a significant gap between the human rights of people with disability and the use of restrictive practices on them in Australia, according to Dr Hayward. The gap is characterised by between international standards and domestic implementation.
While Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Dr Hayward explains that the protections outlined in the UN legislation hasn't translated into national law for individuals who are subjected to chemical and physical restraint.
According to the academic, the Australian government maintains that “Australian law is sovereign” and that the United Nations Committee does not have authority over domestic matters.
“Australia is pretty clear that they believe Australian legislation takes priority over the convention,” Dr Hayward says.
Because the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is broadly worded, the Australian government interprets it in ways that allow local laws to continue permitting restrictive interventions.
In cases where individuals have successfully take claims to the UN, the Australian government has historically rejected the findings.
“Even when there are successful claims to the committee, the Australian government doesn't accept them,” Dr Hayward claims.
The current issue
Minister for National Disability Insurance Scheme, Mark Butler, may have ruled out the use of chemical restraints as an appropriate form of treatment of disability—after a government official confirmed during public hearings that the new proposed NDIS legislation could include a requirement for participants to take medication —but until the legislation explicitly states the minister’s claim in writing, the community remains on edge.
The CEO of Inclusion Australia believes the current draft of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the Future Generations) Bill 2026, will have unintended consequences resulting from a lack of initial consultation with the disability community.
“We think it's a huge risk that the use of psychotropic medication will be caught under appropriate treatment. We're worried that... the use of these really hardcore, really strong medications with side effects will start to be pushed on the ground as an effective or appropriate treatment,” Ms Kennedy says.
"This is not about an underlying health concern. This is about the way medical practitioners and other people in the disability service system think about and use psychotropic medication to control behaviours in people with intellectual disability."
Powerd will keep you updated as the story unfolds.