Guide
NSW RPA review or new submission: what to do before authorisation expires
In short: No. NSW DCJ says an RPA Review cannot reauthorise a regulated restrictive practice or extend its authorisation period. When authorisation is nearing expiry or has expired, the provider needs a new submission through the usual process. Track the existing decision and the new application separately.
A team can have a review meeting booked and still have an authorisation approaching its end. The meeting date, an updated plan and a pending submission describe different events. Recording all three as “in progress” makes it difficult to see which decision is still missing.
This guide explains the distinction in the NSW restrictive practices authorisation process. NDPRO is a commercial software provider; the recordkeeping suggestions below are our practical method, not an official application checklist or legal advice.
Watch: an NSW RPA review and a new submission are separate
Follow Maya, a fictional adult, Sarah, her behaviour support practitioner, and Ben, the implementing provider’s application contact. This 60-second illustration covers a planned NSW RPA process, with capacity for the specific consent decision assumed. It does not cover child, crisis, interim or substitute-consent pathways.
Read the 60-second video transcript
00–07 seconds — A review is booked. Sarah supports Maya in NSW. A review is booked. But the recorded authorisation ends on 30 November.
07–15 seconds — Maya and her chosen supports. Maya takes part in planning. Her behaviour support plan, specific consent and panel decision remain separate records.
15–23 seconds — A specific evidence request. Sarah asks Ben at the implementing provider: what is the new submission’s status, and where is the authorisation evidence?
23–32 seconds — Who decides. The panel brings provider leadership and independent behaviour-support expertise. Sarah explains her plan; she does not independently approve her own work.
32–41 seconds — Review and new submission. The review cannot extend authorisation. A new submission follows the usual process. Pending is still pending.
41–50 seconds — A clear practitioner handover. Use NDPRO to keep the recorded restrictive-practice and BSP details visible. Check the provider’s evidence and what remains unresolved.
50–60 seconds — The payoff. A clearer record for behaviour support practice operations. Explore your workflow in a 30-minute NDPRO Director walkthrough.
On-screen roles and records: Maya is the fictional adult participant and takes part with her chosen supports. Capacity for the specific consent decision is assumed in this example. Sarah is the BSP author and presenting practitioner. Ben is the implementing provider’s application contact, an illustrative job function. The panel’s decision-making pair is a provider senior manager/chair and a DCJ Independent Specialist providing independent behaviour-support expertise. Sarah presents her plan outside that pair. This does not mean every panel must use a DCJ-supplied specialist. The recorded panel period ends on 30 November 2026; expiry of consent or the BSP, or panel withdrawal, may end authority earlier. The paper objects explain the workflow and are not claims about NDPRO fields, consent storage or government integration.
Open the video · Download English captions (VTT)
The panel roles follow the NSW DCJ panel overview. The distinction between review, expiry and a new submission follows DCJ’s review guidance. Official sources checked 21 October 2026.
What is an RPA Review for?
A Review monitors an authorised practice's implementation and progress, including follow-up on panel recommendations and conditions. DCJ identifies triggers such as increased use, detrimental impact or a practice no longer being required. It can be scheduled during the authorisation period. See DCJ's Review Function guidance.
A review date is therefore useful for oversight. It should not be entered as a replacement authorisation expiry date.
What changes when authorisation is nearing expiry?
DCJ directs providers to make a new submission, with a valid behaviour support plan, supporting material, panel approval and the applicable consent arrangements. A Review cannot extend the existing authorisation.
DCJ also says the authorisation ends at the earliest relevant event: the authorised period ends, consent expires or is withdrawn, the plan expires, or the panel withdraws approval. A future date in one field does not settle the other conditions. Source: DCJ Review Function.
The NSW RPA Policy, sections 4.2–4.5, addresses the person's involvement, the plan, consent and authorisation. Panel authorisation does not itself replace consent. Check the applicable requirements rather than treating one approval label as the whole process.
A practical record for an approaching expiry
Use this suggested structure in your existing approved system. Each row should point to evidence a colleague can retrieve.
| Record | What to keep visible | What it helps prevent |
|---|---|---|
| Existing decision | Reference, authorised period and conditions | Overwriting the decision while preparing another submission |
| Plan and consent | Current versions, relevant dates and any recorded change | Assuming the panel end date is the only date that matters |
| Implementation review | Review purpose, scheduled date and follow-up owner | Mistaking a review appointment for renewed authorisation |
| New submission | Preparation owner, missing items and actual submission reference | Describing preparation as a submitted application |
| New decision | Decision received, conditions and relevant dates | Marking a pending request as approved |
The implementing provider remains responsible for its consent and authorisation arrangements. The behaviour support practitioner has separate responsibilities, including relevant plan lodgement. DCJ's roles and responsibilities explains that allocation.
Synthetic example: a review booked before expiry
A fictional NSW team records an authorisation ending on 30 November and a review meeting on 20 November. No earlier ending event has been identified in this example. On 18 November, another staff member opens the record.
They should be able to distinguish three facts: the existing decision's end date, the purpose of the review, and the status of the new submission. If the new decision has not been received, that should remain visible as an unresolved item with a responsible owner. Moving an internal task date to December must not silently change the date copied from the official decision.
This example tests recordkeeping. It does not determine whether any particular practice may be used.
What should a colleague be able to find when taking over an RPA follow-up?
NSW's restrictive-practices authorisation framework is supported by DCJ's Central Restrictive Practices Team and the NSW RPA system. Implementing providers and behaviour support practitioners have different responsibilities within that process and under the NDIS Commission's requirements. Check the applicable role and current DCJ guidance before assigning the next action. DCJ: roles and responsibilities.
For an internal handover, keep the plan version, submission reference, actual decision and conditions, person responsible for the next action, and evidence still missing together. Distinguish a request sent from a decision received. These are suggested administrative fields, not an official DCJ form.
Fictional example: a colleague inherits a record marked “review requested”. The record has a submission reference but no decision attached. The handover should identify who will obtain the outcome and where it will be recorded. Closing an internal follow-up task does not establish that authorisation has been granted or extended.
Check the handoff before buying software
Ask a supplier to show the existing decision beside the pending submission, then replace the original coordinator with another reviewer. Can that person locate the evidence and explain what remains outstanding?
For NDPRO, use a 30-minute Director walkthrough to test the fields and permissions available in the current product. NDPRO does not convene the official panel, grant authorisation or extend a decision.
Continue with behaviour support software in NSW and authorisation tracking. For official system steps, use DCJ's Reviewing Implementation Progress user guide.
Official sources checked 20 October 2026. The DCJ Review Function page is dated 3 April 2024; the linked policy identifies itself as June 2019. These are source-version dates, not claims of new policy issued in 2026. Confirm current instructions for the particular matter.