NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

Risk of decline and homelessness due to NDIS changes (Participant experience)

‹ PrevPage 1 of 10 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 2708

CONFIDENTIAL

NDIS Submission in response to; National Disability Insurance Scheme amendment (securing the NDIS for future generations) Bill 2026.

I would like to make an anonymous submission for the NDIS for the following reason…..

To the Committee members,

Thank-you for your time considering my response to the proposed changes outlined in the “securing NDIS for generations” Bill 2026. Although I do understand the governments need to make costs more managble, the proposed Bill if implemented will most certainly be the cause of significant, extensive and unnecessary harm across our entire disability community. It will cause more deaths. It is questionable that this bill in fact violates the human rights of people living with a disability, our rights have fought to dismantle a long history of institutionalization, eugenics, and exclusion imposed through systemic oppression, limiting access to resources, choice and social power.

I used to have access to the “old type block funding” before NDIS and currently I am an NDIS participant who is extremely grateful to have access to something that;

a) I have been able to break free from the revolving doors of ongoing continuous extended hospital stays b) allows me the ability to live outside of the public hospital systems c) allows me the opportunity to function as part of society d) allows me to live as independently as possible, in my own home e) allows me the only opportunity I have to access the community f) allows me access to allied health to assist with building techniques and strategies to keep actively working towards my goals

g) it has allowed me to pursue my goals that give me hope they will all lead to one ultimate goal of mine - finding suitable maintainable and sustainable employments one day to be able to experience the sense of purpose I once had contributing to my community with the benefits of financial independence.

h) even with support I will always experience additional barriers, I still work extremely hard every day - harder than most, I will always struggle to get through every day, I don’t take my support for granted, I take my responsibilities as a participant seriously, I don’t have weekends, I don’t rest and Im not a bludger. I am responsible, I don’t misuse my funding.

Living day to day as an NDIS participant is extremely stressful for me. The constant reports and assessments is not only invasive,

I would not otherwise be able to do any of these things without the support I receive.

If the proposed changes go ahead and I have access removed without access to the same types of services and supports I will

a) I would not survive. It will not be a matter of “maybe”, but “how long” and “when” will my life end once access is removed or reduced

b) experience a quick and sever decline across all areas of my life I have been working so hard to achieve and maintain better with assistance of support

Submission 2708

c) likely have more involvement again with the police and ambulance services, executing welfare checks, picking me up off streets for situations and altercations directly related to my disability

d) during the swift decline I will most certainly find myself homeless rather than living independently in my own home, paying rates ect

e) I will likely end up back in the revolving doors of the public mental health system exposed to more risk, harm and trauma

f) I will become a bigger burden and strain on multiple government systems and services just trying to exist. g) I am guaranteed to be exposed to dangerous situations, my health will decline, I won’t have the opportunity to work towards my goals

Although there are multiple sections within this bill I would like to “have my voice heard” regarding, unfortunately I have had to pick just one section to speak with the committee about due to my limited capacity in order for me to do my best to try address it properly. From my reflection regarding the changes and drawing from my own personal experience I though the section I could speak the strongest about further referencing my personal situation may give me the best chance of my voice actually being heard;

Part 8—Tightening meaning of permanence to reduce access where an impairment can be treated

The NDIS Review recommended a more effective approach to determining access. This approach includes how permanence is assessed to refocus the Scheme on supporting people with significant and permanent disability.

Currently paragraph 24(1)(b) of the Act provides that in order for a person to meet the disability requirements, they must have an impairment or impairments that are, or are likely to be, permanent. Sub-paragraphs 25(1)(a)(i) and (ii) require a person to have an impairment that is, or is likely to be, permanent in order to meet the early intervention criteria (unless the person is a child with developmental delay).

****PLEASE NOTE: I WILL BE MAKING REFERENCES SPECIFICALLY TO THE BILL 2026 -

PROPOSED SECTION OF CHANGES TO LEGISLATION BELOW IN MY SUBMISSION ALSO

REFERENCING MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND FURTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FROM

REPUTABLE SOURCES.

I have inserted the section directly from the bill

  • in ‘blue’ coloured font &
  • highlighted sections as well as including ‘***’ To clearly indicate the sections I am trying to speak to. I will also provide links to where I have sourced my supporting evidence from reputable sources.

****The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 (Becoming a Participant Rules) set out (amongst other things) how to determine whether an impairment should be considered permanent, or likely to be permanent. Rule 5.4 provides that an impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent only if there are no known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical or other treatments that would be likely to remedy the impairment.

****This Part inserts an approach to assessing permanence of impairments when determining whether a person meets the disability requirements or early intervention requirements. The intent of this item is to provide a clear definition of permanence including what constitutes appropriate treatment. Amendments also include circumstances which cannot be considered when determining whether a prospective participant has undertaken all appropriate treatment.

****The NDIS was never intended to replace health, rehabilitation and treatment services which play a critical role in preventing lifelong disability. The intent of this Part is to clarify the interpretation of permanence by inserting a definitive test which limits people who are not intended to be participants of the Scheme being found eligible.

Notes on Clauses

****Item 88 – Section 9

Submission 2708

This item inserts a new term ‘appropriate treatment’ for an impairment or impairments in the definitions section of the Act. Appropriate treatment has the meaning given by proposed new section 25A.

****Item 89 – After subsection 24(4) (before note 1) This item inserts a new subsection 24(5).

****The purpose of this item is to define how permanence is assessed for the purposes of determining whether a person meets the disability requirements under section 24 of the Act. It inserts a new subsection 24(5), which provides that an impairment or impairments are not permanent or likely to be permanent unless a person has undertaken all appropriate treatment for an impairment or impairments. Further, an impairment cannot be found to be permanent if there is any other treatment which is likely to materially improve, reverse, or alleviate the impact of the impairment or impairments. In this context, materially means noticeably or significantly.

****This item also specifies that to be found permanent, the person’s impairment or impairments are likely to persist for the person’s lifetime. This means that the person’s impairment or impairments cannot be reversed or remedied and will continue to exist throughout the person’s life course, regardless of treatment undertaken or the passage of time.

****Two notes are inserted to assist the reader with interpretation. The first note points the reader to proposed new section 25A for the meaning of appropriate treatment and when a person is taken to have undertaken all appropriate treatment for an impairment or impairments.

The second note acknowledges some permanent impairments require ongoing treatment to maintain a person’s functional capacity. The purpose of this note is to ensure the CEO considers circumstances where ongoing treatment for permanent impairments is appropriate. For example some people may seek access to the NDIS with impairments that are likely to require ongoing clinical care, such as impairments attributable to psychosocial disability or degenerative conditions. This note makes it clear that a need for ongoing treatment to maintain a level of functional capacity (that is still substantially reduced functional capacity) is not a barrier to access the NDIS.

Proposed new subsection 24(6) makes it clear that subsections 24(2) and 24(3) have an effect subject to new subsection 24(5).

Item 90 – Subparagraph 25(1)(c)(i) This item amends subparagraph 25(1)(c)(i) to remove ‘mitigating or alleviating’ and substitute it with ‘reducing’. The purpose of this amendment is to differentiate this from the assessment of permanence, which requires consideration of whether treatment can alleviate the impact of an impairment.

This amendment will simplify the assessment about whether the provision of early intervention supports is likely to benefit the person by reducing the impact of the person’s impairment to undertake communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care or self-management.

****Item 91 – After subsection 25(1A) The purpose of this item is to define how permanence is assessed for the purposes of determining whether a person meets the early intervention requirements. It inserts a new subsection 25(1B), which provides that an impairment or impairments are not permanent or likely to be permanent unless a person has undertaken all appropriate treatment for an impairment or impairments. Further, an impairment cannot be found to be permanent if there are any other treatments that are likely to materially improve, reverse, or alleviate the impact of the impairment or impairments. In this context, materially means noticeably or significantly.

This item also specifies that to be found permanent, the person’s impairment or impairments are likely to persist for the person’s lifetime. This means that the person’s impairment or impairments cannot be reversed or remedied and will continue to exist throughout the person’s life course, regardless of treatment undertaken or the passage of time.

****Two notes are inserted to assist the reader with interpretation. The first note refers the reader to section 25A to understand the meaning of appropriate treatment and when a person is taken to have undertaken all appropriate treatment for an impairment or impairments.

****The second note acknowledges some permanent impairments require ongoing treatment to maintain a person’s function. The purpose of this note is to ensure the CEO considers circumstances where ongoing treatment for permanent impairments is appropriate.

****Item 92 – After section 25

Submission 2708

This item inserts a new section 25A dealing with the meaning of ‘appropriate treatment’. This concept is key to determining whether a person’s impairment or impairments is permanent or likely to be permanent for the purposes of considering whether they meet the disability requirements or early intervention requirements.

****Proposed new subsection 25A(1) provides that appropriate treatment for a person’s impairment or impairments is treatment that is evidence based, is regularly undertaken in Australia and can reliably be expected to improve, reverse or alleviate the impact of the impairment or impairments.

****A person may require ongoing treatment for some permanent impairments in order to maintain functional capacity in relation to an activity, even if the person has undertaken all appropriate treatment. For example, participants with psychosocial conditions who may require ongoing or intermittent treatment throughout their lives.

****Treatment may be appropriate treatment for a person’s impairment or impairments regardless of whether the person’s individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment. A person’s personal and environmental circumstances, including financial and geographical circumstances, are not relevant in considering whether a person has undertaken all appropriate treatment. This is because ensuring people with disability have access to mainstream services, regardless of their circumstances, is the responsibility of all mainstream support systems.

Person may be taken to have undertaken all appropriate treatment.

****Proposed new paragraph 25A(3)(a) provides that a person is taken to have undertaken all appropriate treatment for an impairment or impairments if there is a medical reason that a person cannot undertake what would otherwise be all appropriate treatment. This ensures that where a person is not able to undertake all appropriate treatment for their impairment or impairments due to medical reasons, this does not preclude them from meeting the permanence criteria.

****Proposed new paragraph 25A(3)(b) together with proposed new subsection 25A(4) will provide that a person is also taken to have undertaken all appropriate medical treatment in circumstances determined in category D NDIS rules. Such circumstances could include consideration of cultural or personal belief systems.

****Proposed new subsection 25A(5) clarifies that NDIS rules made for this purpose may make different provision for different classes of participants and different impairments or classes of impairments.

****The purpose of this rulemaking power is to capture circumstances where it may be inappropriate to determine there are treatment options available for some impairments. For example, this may include types of treatment options for people with psychosocial disability.

Example – Matiu

Matiu has a diagnosed neurological condition affecting his lower limb function. He has been under the care of his General Practitioner and a neurologist for several years and has undertaken all recommended treatment, including medication trials, physiotherapy and rehabilitation programs. Despite this, he continues to experience significant and persistent mobility issues. His treating specialist has advised that no further treatment is likely to result in a material improvement in his functional capacity.

Matiu applies to the NDIS based on a physical impairment related to his ongoing neurological condition which substantially reduces his functional capacity in mobility. Matiu is found to be eligible for the NDIS because his physical impairment is determined to be permanent and he meets all other access criteria in the Act. This is because his long term treatment and advice from his treating specialist means he has undertaken all appropriate treatment to improve, reverse or alleviate his impairment.

Example – Soo

Soo is a 5 year old with a history of long term middle ear infections who lives with her mother in regional Australia. Soo’s mother has applied for her to access the NDIS providing an audiogram indicating a bilateral moderate hearing loss with no indication of sensorineural (permanent) components. Soo is on a waiting list to see an ENT specialist who visits children in her local area every second month.

Soo is found to not be eligible for the NDIS as there is not enough evidence that her impairment will be permanent and will likely persist for her lifetime. She has not yet undergone all investigations for potential treatment options that may improve, reverse or alleviate the impact of her impairment, including evidence based, low-risk interventions such as grommets. The fact that she is living in a regional area where waitlists to see specialists are longer than in metropolitan areas is not able to be taken into consideration in determining whether Soo is eligible for the NDIS.

Submission 2708

Her mother is informed that she can re-apply for the NDIS on behalf of her daughter, after further investigations and recommended treatment options are completed and if it is confirmed that her hearing loss is likely permanent and results in substantially reduced functional capacity.

****Item 93 – Subsection 209(8) (table item 4, column headed ‘Description’, before paragraph (aa)) This item is consequential to item 92. It amends table item 4 in subsection 209(8) so that the new NDIS rule making power dealing with circumstances in which a person is taken to have undertaken all appropriate treatment is a category D NDIS rule, requiring consultation with all states and territories .

****Item 94 – Application provision This is an application provision that provides that amendments made by this Part apply in relation to a determination or decision made by the CEO in relation to whether a person meets the early intervention requirements or disability requirements, or both, made on or after the commencement of this item, whether or not the person is a participant before the commencement of this item. This means that the amendments can apply to decisions about whether a participant meets the disability or early intervention requirements any time after this Part commences.

I am described as a complex participant who has several debilitating psychosocial conditions that have symptoms impacting every area of my life, every day. I have no form of informal support at all. Some of these impacts are not solely caused by my symptoms alone. I acquired additional symptoms as a result of the medical treatment options “available” for “permanent” psychosocial disabilities, that have “no” cure. As my symptoms are persistent and ongoing, the specialist treatment teams “experiment”, trialing endless “cocktails” of medication combinations. Each “medication review” consisted of lengthy hospital admissions lasting months each time. Causing side effects so severe they require additional medications to counteract. The impact on all of your internal systems and organs needs to be monitored routinely. As a result, I have been left with loss of function, a brain injury impacts memory loss and cognitive issues, coupled with the permanent, persistent and ongoing symptoms of my condition. The hospital stays were horrendous, inhumain, lacked any form of dignity, I had limited to no rights even when there was no treatment intervention orders in place. The ongoing system is trauma leading to further complex PTSD and creating further additional barriers to accessing treatment options available.

Please see below the following reasons with supporting evidence attached that will support my personal experience and that this will without a doubt cause significant harm to psychosocial participants seeking access to the NDIS. It is ethically wrong and it also violates the rights of people with psychosocial disabilities.

Watching governments pull back from providing mental health care has left a void, and .private institutions have eagerly stepped in. Unfortunately, in so many cases, profit takes center stage, pushing patient/participant needs aside. The drive for revenue—from private facilities, donor-funded programs, and pharmaceutical giants—often means that choices about care are steered by financial motives and international trends, rather than by what’s best for communities or patients’ rights.

Money and the influence of Western medical models—like the now-questioned idea of a “chemical imbalance”—have underpinned the widespread use of antidepressants and entrenched some pretty harmful practices. In these settings, quick fixes and cost-cutting often outweigh thoughtful, compassionate care, with involuntary commitments, physical restraints, forced drugs, or electroshock treatments becoming routine.

Sadly, this means that mental health care often does more harm than good for the very people it’s meant to help. Please see the below further referenced supporting evidence;

 Recent evidence of systemic psychiatric abuse in Australia is heavily documented in government and human rights inquiries. The landmark Disability Royal Commission and prior state-based inquiries highlight several systemic issues: https://rcvmhs.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Victorian_Mental_Illness_Awareness_Council.pdf High Rates of Coercive Practices: The use of forced treatments, chemical restraints, and seclusion rooms remains disproportionately high in acute inpatient facilities.

Submission 2708

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/if-we’re-to-have-another-inquiry-into-mental-healt Abuse in Inpatient Units: Submissions to the Mental Health Complaints Commissioner previously identified severe systemic concerns, including high rates of physical and sexual violence within inpatient wards. https://rcvmhs.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Victorian_Mental_Illness_Awareness_Council.pdf

 Historical and Ongoing Institutional Abuse: Historical abuse at facilities like the former Wolston Park psychiatric hospital in Queensland prompted fresh state government investigations into toxic cultures, beatings, and unrecorded patient deaths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10gNdatlzNQ

  • Criminalisation of Mental Illness: Systemic failures, a lack of community support, and inadequate crisis interventions frequently result in people with psychosocial disabilities being unnecessarily pushed into the criminal justice system. https://rcvmhs.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Human_Rights_Law_Centre.pdf For further details, explore the official findings and systemic recommendations outlined by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

 Evidence of systemic psychiatric abuse in Australia comes from multiple official inquiries, coronial findings, and investigative journalism. The documented patterns span from historical institutional mistreatment to ongoing concerns regarding modern restrictive practices, involuntary treatments, and marginalisation. Primary evidence of this abuse can be found in the following historical and contemporary sources:

 Contemporary Systemic and Human Rights Concerns

Recent findings from the National Mental Health Consumer Alliance and the People with Disability Australia (PWDA) suggest that fundamental issues remain built into the modern system. Major systemic issues include:

Submission 2708

Take the United States: suicide rates climbed by 30 percent between 1999 and 2016. According to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a Harvard study in 2022 found that psychiatric hospitals still subject people to forced electroshock, chemical restraints, and long periods of mechanical restraint—practices condemned under the United Nations Convention against Torture.

Shockingly, over 80 percent of psychiatric centers for young people use seclusion or restraints, echoing solitary confinement and causing serious psychological distress. These forced treatments, as CCHR points out, are rooted in old patterns of discrimination, segregation, and gross violations of human rights.

Evidence keeps mounting that the mental health “treatment” industry isn’t improving outcomes. Reviews, including those by Health and Human Rights, spotlight greed as a major force shaping today’s system.

  • Introducing this new legislation will cause further systemic harm, systemic trauma and systemic abuse for people who have a psychosocial disability.

Overwhelmed by high staffing costs, facilities too often choose to restrain patients instead of offering proper support. Those who are hard to manage may be overmedicated or given electroshock therapy—not because it’s needed, but because it’s easier and cheaper. Money, not well-being, tends to dictate what happens.

  • There is an extremely high risk & likelihood of this occurring to psychosocial participants within the NDIS if this bill is passed and legislation is changed as proposed accordingly.

Global Fallout from Cutting Costs; this isn’t just an Australian issue. In South Africa’s Life Esidimeni scandal between 2015 and 2016, about 1,700 patients were shifted from public care to unlicensed private facilities. As a result, 144 people died and 44 went missing—sobering statistics that show how dangerous profit-driven systems can be.

At the heart of all this is a disregard for patients’ autonomy – ‘choice & control’.

Psychiatric patients are routinely denied a basic right: the chance to give informed consent.

As journalist Robert Whitaker puts it, everyone deserves to know what their diagnosis means and the risks and benefits of any treatment.

  • Studies in the 1980s and 1990s failed to support the chemical imbalance theory. Yet, the American Psychiatric Association kept this under wraps, hiding poor outcomes tied to this model. Despite the shaky evidence, psychiatry sold the concept as a breakthrough, boosting its own prestige. Pharmaceutical companies saw an opportunity and quickly ramped up production of psychoactive drugs.

Groups like CCHR and the World Health Organisation are calling for a new approach—one that centers on human rights, bans involuntary commitments and treatments like electroshock (ECT), and investigates abuses such as forced drugging, restraint, and seclusion.

  • Moving in this direction would mean scrapping the profit-driven model and rebuilding mental health care around respect, support, and dignity. Such a shift would deeply cut into the profits of private facilities and pharmaceutical companies, and it would take away the psychiatric industry’s power to detain and profit from vulnerable people.

Submission 2708

Why Change and reform IS Urgent for people with psychosocial disabilities;

The psychiatric industry as it stands is riddled with practices that amount to exploitation, cruelty, and suffering—all for financial gain. I believe it’s time to dismantle this system and rebuild one that truly honours human rights and prioritises genuine care.

Official Australian bodies, including the Disability Royal Commission, acknowledge significant harms associated with psychiatric medications. Evidence cites overprescription, severe adverse reactions, and physical complications, particularly among vulnerable populations such as the elderly and those with cognitive disabilities

Royal Commission highlights concerns about over-medicating people with cognitive disability | Royal Commission

into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability

Key Areas of Evidence and Harm

 Overprescribing & Chemical Restraint: The Disability Royal Commission highlighted the over-prescription of psychotropic medications, such as antipsychotics, to people with cognitive disabilities for “behaviours of concern”. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/news-and-media/media-releases/royal-commission-highlights-concerns about-over-medicating-people-cognitive-disability

 Physical Health Complications: The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care(ACSQHC)

reports that long-term use contributes to metabolic dysfunction, weight gain, hypertension, diabetes, and increased risk of pneumonia. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/resources/attachments/Medication-Safety-in-Mental-Health final-report-2017.pdf

 Older Australians & Dementia: Antipsychotic use in older adults is tied to an increased risk of stroke, falls, hospitalisation, and mortality. https://www.agedcarequality.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/acqsc_psychotropic_medications_v10_hr.pdf

 Withdrawal Challenges: Many Australians experience severe withdrawal symptoms (anxiety, low mood) when stopping antidepressants abruptly. Because these symptoms are often mistaken for a relapse, patients can become trapped in a cycle of long-term dependency.

Safely reducing the use of anti-depressants | ABC News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Ht5J3WJ5M

 Limited Effectiveness: Australian studies (such as those from the University of Sydney’s Brain and Mind Center) indicate that common antidepressants are less effective for approximately (20%) of people (those with atypical depression) and are more likely to cause side effects like fatigue and weight gain in this group.

Antidepressants less effective in atypical depression, new study finds | ABC NEWS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIdK8-te6tA

Regulatory Responses and Guidelines

Because of this evidence, regulatory bodies are implementing stricter controls: [1]

 The Clinical Care Standard: The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Carelaunched the

Psychotropic Medicines in Cognitive Disability or Impairment Clinical Care Standard to manage risks, promote informed consent, and encourage preventative, de-escalation strategies. [1]

Psychotropic Medicines Clinical Care Standard – Message, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thKYoZdpJVE

 Joint Oversight: The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission published a joint statement highlighting the lack of evidence that psychotropic medicines are effective for managing behaviors, and warning about the dangers of diminishing quality of life. [1] https://www.agedcarequality.gov.au/news-publications/latest-news/joint-statement-inappropriate-use-psychotropic medicines

Submission 2708

In Australia, clinical evidence establishes that while Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) can be highly effective for treatment-resistant depression, it carries recognized risks. Common side effects include confusion, headaches, and memory loss. Involuntary administration and whether these effects are permanent remain subjects of ongoing debate. https://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/research-centres/neuromodulation-research-centre/electroconvulsive-therapy ect/

Physical Risks and Complications

 Cardiac Events: Administering ECT while under general anesthesia carries risks. A 2024 review estimated that up to (1) in (15) to (1) in (30) ECT courses could result in serious adverse cardiac events (e.g., irregular heartbeat, cardiac arrest, or heart attack). BJM Journal of medical ethics https://jme.bmj.com/content/52/2/77

 Physical Trauma: Seizures can occasionally lead to muscle tears, fractures, or dental trauma, although muscle relaxants are standardly used to minimize these risks.

Thousands of Australians are receiving ECT without consent every year https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-09/electroconvulsive-therapy-consent-depression/105302318

 Brain Damage: Australian health bodies like the NSW Health Electroconvulsive Therapy Handbookand the Black Dog Institute maintain that modern neuroimaging (MRI) shows no evidence that ECT causes permanent structural brain damage or changes in personality.

Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT)

https://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/research-centres/neuromodulation-research-centre/electroconvulsive-therapy ect/

Cognitive and Memory Side Effects

 Short-Term Effects: Most patients experience temporary confusion and short-term memory loss (retrograde and anterograde amnesia) surrounding the treatment period.

Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT)

https://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/research-centres/neuromodulation-research-centre/electroconvulsive-therapy ect/

 Long-Term Effects: The extent of long-lasting cognitive impact is intensely debated. While many clinicians note that cognitive functions often return to baseline shortly after treatment, some international studies— including recent global surveys involving Australian patients—highlight that a portion of recipients report persistent, years-long memory issues and emotional blunting. National Library of medicine https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7191622/

 Regulation: The use and consent processes of ECT are regulated at the state and territory levels in Australia.

Thousands of Australians are receiving ECT without consent every year https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-09/electroconvulsive-therapy-consent-depression/105302318

 Patient Concerns: Independent research and audits in Australia (such as the 2024 audit from the University of Wollongong) have pointed out that some patient information sheets may insufficiently detail the risks of long term cognitive loss, potentially impeding fully informed consent.

An audit and analysis of electro convulsive therapy patient information sheets used in local health districts in New

South Wales Australia

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/inm.13318

 Involuntary ECT: The use of involuntary (without consent) ECT in some Australian states has drawn scrutiny and criticism from mental health advocates and oversight bodies, prompting various legislative reforms.

Submission 2708

For official resources and state-specific regulations, you can refer to the Healthdirect Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) guide or your local state health department.