Disability rights, inclusion and safeguarding in Tasmania 

This article states the law of Tasmania. The Disability Rights, Inclusion and Safeguarding Act 2024 (Tas) does in one statute what other jurisdictions divide between two or three: it states rights principles, imposes inclusion planning obligations, and provides safeguarding machinery including a Senior Practitioner¹. The prior question in any problem is which of those three functions is engaged, because they carry different consequences.

A note on currency before anything else. A Disability Rights, Inclusion and Safeguarding (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2025 (Tas) accompanies this Act. Commencement and transitional operation should be confirmed against it before a provision is relied on.

Principles expressly grounded in the Convention

Section 8(1) states that the principles it lists "reflect the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" and are to be observed in the operation, administration and enforcement of the Act. That framing is unusually direct: most Australian disability statutes gesture at the Convention in an objects clause; Tasmania anchors its operative principles to it.

The principles include that people with disability have the same right as other members of Australian society to realise their potential; the right to participate in and contribute to social and economic life on an equal basis, and to be supported to enjoy that right; and the right, shared with their families and carers, to certainty that they will receive the care and support they need over their lifetime.

Dignity of risk, stated as a right

Section 8(1)(d) is the provision worth quoting: people with disability have "the right to be supported to exercise choice, including in relation to taking reasonable risks, in the pursuit of their goals and the planning and delivery of their supports".

Dignity of risk appears elsewhere in this series — s 23 of the Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth) confers a right to take personal risks, and s 4(5) of the Disability Inclusion Act 2014 (NSW) refers to decisions involving risk. Tasmania frames it as a right to be supported in taking reasonable risks, which places a positive obligation rather than merely removing an objection.

Paragraph (e) states the right to be respected for worth and dignity and to live free from violence, abuse, neglect, coercion and exploitation — the inclusion of coercion is broader than the equivalent lists in several other jurisdictions. Paragraph (f) states the right to pursue any grievance.

Paragraphs (g) to (i) form a supported decision-making sequence: the right to make one's own decisions and exercise choice and control to the full extent of their capacity; the right to be supported in all dealings and communications so that capacity to exercise choice and control is maximised "in a way that is appropriate to their circumstances and cultural needs"; and, for those who require support in decision-making, access to the support necessary to enable it.

Inclusion planning, with teeth

Sections 9 to 11 require a Tasmanian Disability Inclusion Plan, with amendment and progress reporting. Section 12 then requires a disability inclusion action plan from each defined entity, with amendment, review, a public register and a Disability Action Evaluation Report following in ss 13 to 16. Section 17 requires consultation by defined entities.

What distinguishes Tasmania from New South Wales — whose Disability Inclusion Act 2014 (NSW) also requires action plans — is enforcement. Sections 18 to 21 provide for compliance notices, including their form and content, a defined entity's right to disagree with a notice, and action the Commissioner may take following non-compliance. Section 22 provides for enforceable undertakings.

So the planning obligation is not merely reported on; it is enforceable against the entity. A student comparing the two planning regimes should identify that difference rather than treating them as equivalents.

Safeguarding and the Senior Practitioner

The Act defines a Senior Practitioner and refers to approval by that office under s 62, and the term "restrictive practice" appears throughout. The definition provisions also contemplate a practice or intervention determined by the Senior Practitioner, so the category is not closed by the statute alone.

Tasmania therefore joins Victoria and South Australia in having a Senior Practitioner-style office in its disability statute, and departs from New South Wales, whose disability Act contains no restrictive practices provisions at all.

Four State models, now complete

• Tasmania — rights principles, enforceable inclusion planning and safeguarding with a Senior Practitioner, in one Act.
• Victoria — an integrated Social Services Regulator with registration, standards and a worker exclusion scheme, plus a Senior Practitioner under the disability Act.
• New South Wales — planning obligations only; no restrictive practices provisions.
• Western Australia — Schedule 1 principles applied through named operative sections.

No two States answered the post-NDIS question the same way, and Tasmania's answer is the most consolidated of the four.

Applying this in a problem question

1. Identify which function is engaged: rights principles, inclusion planning, or safeguarding.
2. Confirm commencement against the 2025 transitional Act before relying on a provision.
3. Where autonomy is in issue, argue s 8(1)(d) as a right to be supported in taking reasonable risks, not merely a freedom from interference.
4. For an entity's planning failure, go to the compliance notice provisions rather than treating s 12 as unenforceable.
5. Where a restrictive practice is used, identify whether Senior Practitioner approval under s 62 was required and obtained.
6. Do not assume the category of restrictive practice is closed by the Act; the Senior Practitioner may determine practices into it.

Self-check

• Have I confirmed commencement against the transitional Act?
• Have I stated s 8(1)(d) as a supported right rather than a bare liberty?
• Have I used the compliance notice route for a planning failure?
• Have I checked whether the practice was one determined by the Senior Practitioner?