One of the most common questions we hear from NDIS providers is: do I need authorisation every time a worker physically supports a participant? The short answer is no—but understanding where the line sits is essential for keeping people safe and staying compliant.

First, it helps to be clear on what we’re talking about. A regulated restrictive practice under the NDIS framework is any practice or intervention that has the effect of restricting the rights or freedom of movement of a person with disability, used primarily for the purpose of behavioural control. This includes seclusion, chemical restraint, mechanical restraint, physical restraint, and environmental restraint. These practices require authorisation and must only be used as a last resort, with appropriate safeguards in place.

Authorisation is not required for non-coercive physical assistance that enables activities of daily living or serves a therapeutic purpose. This means your team can physically help a participant to dress, shave, or brush their teeth without needing authorisation, provided the contact is supportive rather than coercive. The same applies to skill-building activities—like guiding someone’s hand to use a knife when preparing food. These are acts of care, not control.

However, it’s important to remember that just because something doesn’t require formal authorisation doesn’t mean it can happen without the participant’s agreement. Consent from the participant—or their nominee or guardian where applicable—is still required for any physical contact or support. This is a fundamental part of respecting a person’s dignity, autonomy, and right to make decisions about their own body and care. Your team should be documenting how consent is obtained and ensuring it is informed, voluntary, and ongoing.

Therapists such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists can also provide hands-on support—stretching, resistance exercises, postural assistance—without it being classified as a restrictive practice. Similarly, physically redirecting someone away from immediate danger, like moving their hand from a hot surface or holding their hand to cross the road, is considered a reasonable exercise of care and does not require authorisation. For more detail on these distinctions, the DCJ NSW Restrictive Practices Guidance on Physical Restraint is a useful reference.

It’s also worth noting the NDIS Commission’s position on transportation safety devices. Child and window locks, seat belt guards, dividing screens between the driver and passengers, and harnesses prescribed for postural support during travel are not considered regulated restrictive practices. These devices support legal compliance with road safety laws. The NDIS Commission Safe Transportation Practice Guide covers this in full.Getting this right matters. When providers and their teams clearly understand the difference between supportive physical contact and restrictive practices—and ensure participant consent is always part of the process—everyone benefits. Participants receive the care they need with their rights upheld, and staff can do their jobs with confidence. If you’re unsure where your organisation stands, Eighteen33 can help you build clarity into your policies and practice.