You may have seen some discussion yesterday about this book, and DNA Inc. has been asked for our thoughts/position on it.You don't have to read our entire post. It is lengthy and detailed, but we have broken it into 3 sections for those who want a broader view or to do their own further research. We will also post this on our DNA Inc. website blog.So, let's talk about it. The book in question is 'The Neurodivergent Friendly Workbook of DBT Skills', now in its second edition, written by Sonny Jane Wise. We recognise that this workbook is becoming increasingly popular within neurodivergent communities and professional spaces. The author reports that more than 100,000 copies have been sold worldwide, and the second edition explicitly describes itself as reimagining DBT skills, including interpersonal effectiveness, through a neurodiversity-affirming lens. It includes material addressing sensory regulation, meltdowns, shutdowns, capacity, self-advocacy, stimming and accessible mindfulness.We also recognise that Sonny Jane Wise is an Autistic ADHDer and that lived experience matters.But here's where DNA Inc. is going to be very clear:DNA Inc. does not endorse CBT, DBT, or adaptations or derivatives of CBT or DBT as neuroaffirming frameworks.That includes resources that describe themselves as 'neurodivergent-friendly', 'neurodiversity-affirming' or 'neuroaffirming' when they are fundamentally derived from CBT or DBT.This is not because we believe that every person who has ever used CBT or DBT has been harmed.It isn't because we believe every DBT skill is inherently useless.And it isn't because we believe that an Autistic person who says, "This helped me," is lying.People's experiences are real. Some people genuinely find these approaches useful.Our position is about something broader:DNA Inc. does not believe that modifying, adapting or neurodiversity-proofing an existing therapeutic framework necessarily makes the underlying framework neuroaffirming.The bottom line:The evidence does not support the simplistic claim that DBT is inherently harmful to autistic people.It does support the fact that DBT has a documented behavioural foundation, including reinforcement, shaping and extinction.It also now provides evidence that DBT can help some autistic people, including autistic adults experiencing severe emotional dysregulation and suicidal behaviour.Those facts can all be true simultaneously.DNA Inc.'s position therefore isn't:"The research proves DBT is bad."It is:"We have examined the research, the history, the theoretical foundations, the adaptations and the neuroaffirming claims, and we do not endorse CBT, DBT or CBT/DBT-derived adaptations as neuroaffirming frameworks."And we think neurodivergent people deserve the freedom to critically examine resources created by anyone, including people within our own community.Because being neurodivergent can give someone valuable lived experience.It does not give anyone a lifetime exemption from scrutiny.Read on to hear more from us, gain some background info, and deepen your enquiry:The history of DBT is important to acknowledge. There is sometimes a tendency to talk about DBT as though its behavioural foundations are a misconception created by critics.They aren't.Marsha Linehan, the creator of DBT, has explicitly described DBT as developing from early attempts to apply standard behaviour therapy to people who were highly suicidal. She describes behaviour-change procedures as part of DBT's development and specifically discusses positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement and shaping as behavioural components of DBT.And this isn't merely historical. Contemporary DBT training materials themselves explicitly teach concepts including:- reinforcement;- negative reinforcement;- shaping;- extinction;- punishment;- behavioural consequences; and- reinforcing alternative behaviours.Linehan's published DBT training materials define extinction as reducing behaviour by removing ongoing reinforcement and describe punishment as an aversive consequence intended to decrease behaviour. They also explicitly describe shaping as reinforcing successive steps towards a larger behavioural goal.We don't need to exaggerate this history. The behavioural lineage is documented by DBT's own creator and its own training materials.That matters to us because DNA Inc. is fundamentally concerned with what happens when a framework developed around behavioural change is brought into neurodivergent lives and presented as neuroaffirming.And yes, CBT has a behavioural history too. However, we reject the simplistic claim that CBT is literally identical to ABA.It isn't.CBT developed through the integration of cognitive therapy and behaviour therapy, and its theoretical model is considerably broader than operant conditioning alone. The historical literature explicitly describes the merging of behavioural and cognitive approaches into cognitive-behavioural therapy.Aaron Beck's cognitive therapy was specifically concerned with cognition, interpretation, automatic thoughts and cognitive schemas.So DNA Inc. isn't going to pretend that CBT and ABA are interchangeable words.But that distinction does not change our organisational position: We do not endorse CBT in any form as a neuroaffirming framework for neurodivergent people."But this isn't traditional DBT"We know. And we think it is important to acknowledge that fairly.The second edition of Wise's workbook explicitly says that it is not a traditional DBT workbook. It states that conventional DBT resources are not neurodivergent-friendly and deliberately incorporates sensory regulation, meltdown support, capacity, self-advocacy, stimming, accessible mindfulness and communication needs.So we aren't going to pretend that the author simply copied a conventional DBT framework for this workbook, changed the cover and added the word "neurodivergent". That would not be an accurate description of what the book actually claims to do.Our concern is different. We question whether adapting the content and delivery of a DBT-derived framework is sufficient to make that framework genuinely neuroaffirming. For DNA Inc., that is a much bigger question than whether the worksheets are gentler, more accessible or more inclusive.We want to know what assumptions remain underneath them.What is being changed?Why is it being changed?Who decided that it needed changing?Who benefits from the change?What counts as "successful"?And, perhaps most importantly:Whose behaviour is being changed, and for whose benefit? "Adaptive" for whom?This is where our concerns become particularly important. A neurodivergent person experiencing sensory overload may not have an "emotion regulation problem". They may have an environment that is intolerably overwhelming.A person having a meltdown may not need better techniques for suppressing their response. They may need safety, reduced demands, sensory accommodation, communication support, recovery time and an environment that does not repeatedly push their nervous system beyond capacity.A person who communicates differently may not need to become more socially conventional. They may need communication partners who understand them.A person who avoids demands may not simply need better strategies for complying with those demands. The demand itself may need to be examined.A person experiencing distress may not have distorted thinking. Their interpretation of their circumstances may be completely understandable.So one of the questions DNA Inc. asks of any therapeutic framework is: Adaptive for whom?If the person is repeatedly taught how to tolerate an inaccessible, overwhelming or oppressive environment without that environment being examined, we have to ask whether we are supporting the person or simply making the person better able to endure what is harming them.Identifying these matters enormously in neuroaffirming practice. "Does it work?" is not the only questionWe also want to be intellectually honest here. There is emerging evidence that DBT can help some autistic people.For example, a 2024 pragmatic randomised controlled trial included 123 autistic adults with suicidal behaviour. Sixty-three participants received DBT and 60 received treatment "as usual". At the end of treatment, the DBT group had statistically significant reductions in suicidal ideation and suicide attempts compared with treatment as usual. Those effects were no longer statistically significant at the 12-month follow-up, although reductions in depression remained significant.A 2025 randomised controlled trial involving 63 autistic adults experiencing emotional dysregulation and self-harm and/or suicidal behaviour also found improvements in emotional dysregulation, depression and quality of life following DBT, with some improvements maintained at six-month follow-up.A further 2025 study involving 26 autistic adults who completed a five-month standard DBT program found improvements in identified emotions, positive emotions and perceived emotion control, although not all measured emotional outcomes changed.And a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of four randomised controlled trials involving 375 autistic participants found statistically significant pooled improvements in emotional regulation and reductions in suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms. However, the authors explicitly cautioned that the evidence base remains limited, heterogeneous and in need of larger, higher-quality trials.So no, DNA Inc. is not going to pretend the evidence says: "DBT never helps autistic people."It doesn't.Some autistic people benefit.Some people strongly dislike it.Some people find individual skills useful.Some people may find the entire framework harmful or invalidating.Those experiences can coexist.And acknowledging evidence that doesn't fit our preferred conclusion is part of being serious about evidence. But efficacy and neuroaffirmation are not the same question. Something can produce a measurable clinical outcome without DNA Inc. considering the underlying framework neuroaffirming."Does it work?" is one question. We also ask:- What is it working to achieve?- How is it achieving it?- What does the person have to change to achieve that outcome?- Who defines the outcome as successful?- What assumptions does the intervention make about normality?- What happens when the person's environment is the actual source of distress?- Does the intervention increase autonomy, or primarily increase adaptation to existing expectations?- Does it help the person understand and advocate for their needs, or teach them to tolerate having those needs unmet?Those are neuroaffirming questions.Someone might say:"But mindfulness is useful."Sure.Someone else might say:"Learning to recognise my emotions helped me."Great.Another person might say:"This therapy helped me communicate a boundary."That's entirely possible. However, skills are not the same thing as frameworks and DNA Inc. does not need to argue that every technique associated with DBT is inherently bad.A useful technique does not require us to endorse the entire theoretical framework from which it originated. Likewise, finding value in one technique does not prove that the framework itself is appropriate for every neurodivergent person. We can acknowledge useful components without endorsing the package.Neuroaffirmation is not just accessibility added to an existing therapy. This is probably the biggest philosophical distinction for us.We don't think neuroaffirmation means:Take an existing therapeutic model - change the language - add sensory regulation - mention stimming - add self-advocacy - make the worksheets prettier and more accessible - call it neuroaffirming.Those changes may be valuable. They may make a resource considerably less harmful or more accessible. But DNA Inc. believes the deeper question is whether the underlying understanding of the person, distress, behaviour, difference, autonomy and change has actually changed.Neuroaffirmation cannot simply mean making a conventional therapeutic framework more comfortable for neurodivergent people. Sometimes the framework itself needs to be questioned.We also reject neurodivergent tokenism and we want to say something else very clearly:- Being Autistic does not automatically make someone right.- Being ADHD does not automatically make someone right.- Being AuDHD does not automatically make someone right.- Being neurodivergent does not automatically make someone right.That includes people we like.It includes people we respect.It includes people with large audiences.It includes people with lived experience.And yes, it includes us.We recognise that Sonny Jane Wise has become an influential voice within neurodivergent communities. We recognise the value of lived experience and the importance of neurodivergent people creating resources for our own communities.But DNA Inc. will not blindly follow information, interventions, organisations or individuals simply because they are Autistic, ADHD or otherwise neurodivergent. That would simply replace one form of authority with another.An Autistic person can have valuable lived experience and still produce something we disagree with.A non-Autistic researcher can produce useful evidence without automatically being right.Neither professional status nor neurodivergent identity is an epistemic trump card.Our standard has to be more demanding than that.- We look at the evidence.- We look at the assumptions.- We look at history.- We look at power.- We look at whose interests are being served.- We listen to lived experience.- We examine limitations.And we ask what the consequences might be.That standard applies to clinicians.It applies to researchers.It applies to advocates.It applies to organisations.It applies to authors.And it applies to Autistic and otherwise neurodivergent people too.Our position is not that neurodivergent people should be prevented from accessing CBT, DBT or any other intervention. Ensuring autonomy is part of being neurodivergent-affirming. People have the right to make their own choices.Someone can choose DBT.Someone can choose CBT.Someone can choose this workbook.Someone can decide that a particular skill works brilliantly for them.We don't need to take that choice away from them.DNA Inc. is not claiming the right to decide what individual neurodivergent people are allowed to do. Our position concerns what DNA Inc. itself endorses, recommends, promotes or describes as neuroaffirming.And our organisational position is clear:We do not endorse CBT.We do not endorse DBT.We do not endorse neurodivergent adaptations or derivatives of CBT or DBT as neuroaffirming frameworks.That does not mean nobody can benefit from them. It means DNA Inc. does not consider benefit alone sufficient reason for us to endorse the framework.So, where does DNA Inc. land on this particular book? We don't consider 'The Neurodivergent Friendly Workbook of DBT Skills' equivalent to a conventional DBT workbook.We acknowledge that it makes a substantial effort to address neurodivergent experiences and that its author is explicitly attempting to move away from rigid, compliance-oriented and neuronormative applications of DBT.We also acknowledge that emerging research provides evidence that DBT can produce beneficial outcomes for some autistic adults.But none of that changes DNA Inc.'s position. We do not endorse DBT-derived interventions as neuroaffirming.We don't believe putting 'neurodivergent-friendly' or 'neurodiversity-affirming' in a title is sufficient to settle the question. We want to know what is underneath the label.We want to know whether the intervention is helping a person become more themselves, or simply becoming better at surviving expectations that were never designed with them in mind.We want to know whether distress is being understood in context rather than automatically located inside the individual.We want to know whether environmental change is considered alongside individual change.We want autonomy, accommodation, communication, sensory needs, relationships, identity and context to matter.And we want neurodivergent people to be able to critically examine resources created by other neurodivergent people without being accused of betraying our own community.We can respect a person without endorsing everything they produce.We can acknowledge evidence without surrendering our values.We can recognise that something helps some people without deciding it is right for everyone.And we can be deeply committed to lived experience without turning lived experience into unquestionable authority.That's the standard DNA Inc. intends to apply.Not:"An Autistic person wrote it, therefore it must be neuroaffirming."Not:"The title says neurodivergent-friendly, therefore it must be neuroaffirming."And not:"Research says it can work, therefore we must endorse it."Instead:- What is the model?- What are its foundations?- What assumptions does it make?- What is being changed?- Why?- For whose benefit?- What does the evidence actually show?- What does lived experience tell us?- What are the limitations?And does the whole thing align with what we mean when we say neuroaffirming?For DNA Inc., those questions matter more than the label on the cover.Want to investigate further?We encourage people to read the evidence themselves rather than simply accepting DNA Inc.'s position, or anyone else's.Importantly, some of the sources below support concerns about DBT's behavioural foundations, while others provide evidence that DBT can be effective for some autistic people. We are including both because cherry-picking only the research that agrees with us would defeat the point.1. Linehan & Wilks (2015)- The history and development of DBT:Linehan, M. M., & Wilks, C. R. (2015). The course and evolution of dialectical behavior therapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 69(2), 97-110.This is one of the most important sources for understanding DBT's origins because it comes from DBT's creator. It explicitly states that DBT developed from attempts to apply standard behaviour therapy to highly suicidal individuals and discusses behavioural change procedures including reinforcement and shaping.Read the Linehan & Wilks paper here: https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2015.69.2.972. Linehan's own DBT training materials:Linehan's published DBT training materials explicitly discuss:- positive and negative reinforcement;- shaping;- extinction;- punishment;- behavioural consequences; and- reinforcing alternative behaviour.This is useful for anyone wanting to investigate the behavioural mechanisms in DBT rather than relying on descriptions from critics or supporters.Read Linehan's DBT Skills Training materials here: https://www.guilford.com/add/linehan6_old/lin-c-handouts.pdf?t=1&utm3. Linehan's DBT Skills Training Manual:The manual provides particularly direct examples of reinforcement, shaping and extinction. It describes shaping as reinforcing successive steps towards a larger behavioural goal and discusses extinction as reducing behaviour by removing reinforcement.Read Linehan's DBT Skills Training Manual materials here: https://www.guilford.com/add/linehan7_old/lin-p-all-teaching.pdf?t=1&utm4. Huntjens et al. (2024)- DBT and suicidality in autistic adults:Huntjens, A., van den Bosch, W., Sizoo, B., Kerkhof, A., Smit, F., & van der Gaag, M. (2024). The effectiveness and safety of dialectical behavior therapy for suicidal ideation and behavior in autistic adults: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Psychological Medicine, 54(10), 2707-2718.Participants: 123 autistic adults- DBT: n = 63- Treatment as usual: n = 60- Six Dutch mental-health centres- Participants aged 18-65- Significant reduction in suicidal ideation at end of treatment: p = .025Significant reduction in suicide attempts at end of treatment: p = .002- Effects on suicidal ideation and attempts were no longer statistically significant at 12 months- Depression improvements remained significant at 12 monthsThis is particularly important because it directly contradicts any simplistic claim that DBT necessarily increases suicidality or is inherently harmful to autistic people.Read more about the studies here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38606582/?utmRead the full Cambridge University Press article here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/effectiveness-and-safety-of-dialectical-behavior-therapy-for-suicidal-ideation-and-behavior-in-autistic-adults-a-pragmatic-randomized-controlled-trial/4464CA3C0D3DDEF5F3A4BD45415B9B50?utm5. Bemmouna et al. (2025)- DBT for emotional dysregulation in autistic adults:Bemmouna, D., Rabot, E., Coutelle, R., Lefebvre, F., Weibel, S., & Weiner, L. (2025). Dialectical Behaviour Therapy to Treat Emotion Dysregulation in Autistic Adults without Intellectual Disability: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 94(4), 247-262.Participants: 63 autistic adultsParticipants had emotional dysregulation and self-harm and/or suicidal behaviour.The study reported significant improvements in emotional dysregulation, depression and quality of life in the DBT group compared with the waiting-list condition.Read more about the study here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40203811/?utmRead the open-access paper here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12083952/?utm6. Costache et al. (2025)- DBT examined using real-time measures:Costache, M. E., Gioia, F., Vanello, N., et al. (2025). Dialectical behavior therapy in autistic adults: effects on ecological subjective and physiological measures of emotion dysregulation. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 12, 14.26 autistic adults completed the pre/post assessment.The study used ecological momentary assessment, with participants completing 12 assessments per day for seven days, alongside continuous physiological monitoring.The researchers found increases in identified emotions, positive emotions and emotion control following DBT, although not every emotional or physiological measure changed.Read more about the study here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40270009/?utmRead the full open-access study here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40479-025-00288-1?utm7. Fan et al. (2026)- Systematic review and meta-analysis:Fan, G., Wang, P., Zhang, W., & Chen, X. (2026). Efficacy of dialectical behavior therapy-based interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychology, 14, 732.This is currently one of the most important sources to know about.The researchers searched six English and Chinese databases and identified 137 records, ultimately including four RCTs involving 375 participants.Compared with control conditions, DBT-based interventions were associated with:- emotional regulation: SMD = −0.89, 95% CI −1.67 to −0.10- suicidal ideation: SMD = −1.97, 95% CI −3.02 to −0.91- depressive symptoms: SMD = −2.23, 95% CI −4.35 to −0.11No significant effect was found for anxiety.Importantly, the authors caution that the evidence is limited by the small number of trials and substantial heterogeneity, and they call for larger, higher-quality RCTs.Read more about the study here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42104500/?utmRead the full BMC Psychology paper here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40359-026-04729-6?utm8. Weiner et al. (2025)- Review of DBT in autism:Weiner, L., Bemmouna, D., Costache, M. E., & Martz, E. (2025). Dialectical Behavior Therapy in Autism. Current Psychiatry Reports, 27(5), 307-318.This review discusses the emerging evidence concerning DBT for autistic people and is useful for understanding where the research currently sits rather than relying exclusively on either DBT advocates or critics.Read more on the study here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40048080/?utm9. Moore, Larkin & Foley (2024)- Adapting mental-health interventions for autistic adults:Moore, L., Larkin, F., & Foley, S. (2024). Mental Health Professionals' Experiences of Adapting Mental Health Interventions for Autistic Adults: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 54, 2484-2501.This systematic review examined 13 studies concerning professionals' experiences of adapting mental-health interventions for autistic adults.It is particularly relevant to the broader question of whether adapting an existing therapy for autistic people is straightforward. The review found that adaptation is highly individualised and involves both facilitators and challenges at individual, professional, systemic and service levels.Read the systematic review here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-023-06006-6?utm10. CBT's historical development:For people interested in the CBT side of the discussion, Rachman's historical review is useful because it describes the development of behaviour therapy and the subsequent infusion of cognitive concepts and procedures that contributed to modern CBT.Rachman, S. (2015). The evolution of behaviour therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 64, 1-8.Read more here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25462876/?utmFor a history of Beck's cognitive therapy and CBT:Beck, A. T., & Dozois, D. J. A. (2011). Cognitive Therapy- Current Status and Future Directions. Annual Review of Medicine, 62, 397-409.Read the Annual Review article here: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-052209-100032?utm11. The workbook itselfAnyone forming an opinion about Wise's book or deciding if they are going to invest time and money in it, should ideally read the author's own description rather than relying on someone else's characterisation.The second edition explicitly states that it:- is not a traditional DBT workbook;- reimagines DBT skills through a neurodiversity-affirming lens;- contains 166 pages of worksheets and information;- addresses sensory regulation;- addresses meltdowns;- addresses capacity;- addresses self-advocacy;- includes stimming;- includes accessible mindfulness;- includes interpersonal effectiveness; and- is written by an Autistic ADHDer.The author also reports more than 100,000 copies sold worldwide.Read the author's description of the second edition or buy it here: https://www.livedexperienceeducator.com/store/p/neurodivergent-friendly-workbook-of-dbt-skills?utm

Schools are often described as places where children learn, teachers teach and young people are prepared for participation in society. But schools are more than classrooms.

Most people who establish community organisations, become advocates, develop support programmes, or volunteer their time do so because they genuinely want to make the world better. They have witnessed injustice firsthand. They have experienced exclusion themselves or walked alongside those who have. They recognise gaps in systems and choose to invest their time, energy, knowledge, and often their own resources into creating something better.

(Part 2 of: The Elephant Standing in the Room Wearing a Sunflower Lanyard)

Content warning: This article discusses suicide, domestic and family violence, coercive control, disability abuse, institutional violence, systemic neglect, and preventable death. Please engage with care and seek support if needed.

At GRANN, we spend a great deal of time listening to conversations happening across the autistic, ADHD, AuDHD, disability and neurodivergent communities.

There is an elephant standing in the disability sector right now.

GRANN's Initial Reflections from the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Hearings, 9, 10 and 11 June 2026: NDIS (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

Across Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children remain dramatically overrepresented in child protection and youth justice systems. Too often, these statistics are interpreted as evidence of individual or family failure. Yet decades of research, inquiries and lived experience point elsewhere: to the enduring impacts of colonisation, structural inequality and institutional systems that too often misunderstand disability, disregard culture, and respond to difference with surveillance and punishment rather than support.

Across Australia, an increasing number of practitioners, consultants, therapists, and organisations describe themselves as trauma-informed, neuro-affirming, strengths-based, and culturally safe. These terms now appear across websites, social media pages, professional profiles, conference presentations, and service brochures. They signal a commitment to inclusion, dignity, and person-centred practice. Yet for many neurodivergent people, Indigenous communities, and grassroots advocacy organisations, a growing question remains:

By bee austin

Much of the current conversation around NDIS reform has centred on parental responsibility.

The two images sit beside each other like a split screen of the modern disability sector.

There is a particular kind of grief that comes from being harmed inside your own community.

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Behaviour support has become one of the fastest-growing industries within the Australian disability sector. It sits everywhere now:

The Expanding Adult Crime, Adult Time and Taking a Strong Stance on Drugs and Anti-Social Behaviour Amendment Bill 2026 (Qld) is being framed as a decisive response to crime. Stronger penalties. Faster consequences. Expanded police powers.

There’s a story we keep being told.

I am always thinking about words. My dad used to say that one word can change the entire meaning of your intention. I remember the way he would pause on that, like language wasn’t just something we used, but something we were responsible for. I think about that a lot now. Because I was never fully comfortable with the rise of “inclusion” as the word everyone seemed to reach for, even as it became the language of the moment. And lately, I have been sitting with why I no longer feel like myself when I write posts for Facebook. Not fully myself, anyway. Not the me that swears. Not the me that writes instinctively, bluntly, yes, even more bluntly than usual, honestly. Not the me that started with a page called Anywhere But Centre before I changed it to BEE – Neurodivergent Buzz…before Facebook decided I was apparently no longer me and deleted me, along with years of work.

I remember sitting in that room feeling less like a person and more like a case file that had learned to breathe.

2nd April. Today isn’t just a date on the calendar. It’s a spotlight. And like any spotlight, it reveals… and it erases.

There is something almost hypnotic about simplicity.

We are tired of being turned into projects.

The Boyne deal is being sold as a decarbonisation breakthrough, but it is also a textbook example of how Australian governments socialise industrial risk while privatising industrial reward. On 25 March 2026, the Commonwealth and Queensland governments announced they would each put in $1 billion over ten years to keep Rio Tinto’s Boyne aluminium smelter operating beyond the end of its current power contract in 2029 and through to at least 2040. In return, Rio says it will underwrite about $7.5 billion in renewable generation and transmission, with more than 2.8 GW of renewable power and over 600 MW of storage already contracted across Queensland. The public justification is jobs, sovereign capability, and decarbonisation.

There is a diagram you’ve probably seen. A circle. A child moving out to explore. A child returning for comfort.

Across advocacy landscapes, particularly in complex systems like disability, representation is often assumed to be expansive, participatory, and community-led. Yet beneath this surface, a quieter dynamic can emerge - one where influence consolidates, networks tighten, and the same voices circulate through multiple organisational spaces.

Inclusion as Promise, Inclusion as Performance:

There is a particular kind of language that glows.It speaks of belonging.Of choice.Of self-determination.Of neurodivergent affirmation.And if you read the websites of many organisations, you will find all of it.

When policymaking is shaped by people who have strong support networks, stable incomes, and access to services, it can unintentionally assume those supports exist for everyone.

Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) is often framed as a progressive, person-centred approach to supporting individuals with disabilities, particularly Autistic people. Since the transition away from Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), PBS has been positioned as the preferred model under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), with explicit funding pathways available to participants. However, the reality of PBS in practice raises significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding its foundations in behaviourism and its implications for Neurodivergent individuals’ autonomy and well-being.

Our schooling system was never truly designed for learning in the way we understand learning today. It was designed for moulding.

By Bee Austin

We’re going to say the quiet part out loud. More of Community have been doing this lately. Let's make it more than just a trend. We don’t need more conferences. Or symposiums. Or expos. Or summits. Or whatever shiny word is being used this week to package exhaustion with a lanyard.

Australia’s first National Autism Strategy 2025-2031 was developed through an extensive co-design process involving thousands of community members. It commits to a “neurodiversity-affirming, individualised and community-centric approach” and promises “nothing about us without us” co‑leadership. To implement the Strategy, government documents call for a “representative advisory group” to oversee action plans. In February 2026 the government announced a National Autism Strategy Reference Group, co‑chaired by a Department official and autistic advocate. According to the official media release, the Reference Group includes five representatives from the Autistic community, two from the research/professional sector, and six Commonwealth agency officials. The appointed members were chosen via a national EOI in consultation with disability and autism peak bodies. Thus the Reference Group combines those within the Autistic community with a large cohort of government representatives (half of the seats) and representatives of established sector organisations.

Not speaking doesn’t mean not communicating.

Have you ever walked out of a conversation feeling unsettled - not because the words were harsh, but because something in the interaction felt off? Like someone wasn’t quite seeing you - or worse, they were seeing something in you they didn’t like about themselves?

A few weeks ago, GRANN was part of ANPA's (Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association) roundtable discussions about the Thriving Kids / No Child Left Behind report. We came into those conversations listening carefully, asking hard questions, and holding families’ experiences at the centre.

In Australia today, disabled people are far too often on the wrong end of the employment gap - and this is especially true for Autistic and otherwise neurodivergent people. Despite decades of policies and programs aimed at inclusion, the reality on the ground remains stark: most disabled Australians struggle to find stable, meaningful, and well-remunerated work, and many of the well-intentioned supports offered fall far short of what’s needed for real economic participation.

This is a factual analysis of the decision to dismantle Queensland’s specialist domestic and family violence policing unit. It is not a reflective piece, not a blog, and not written for comfort. It draws on available Australian data, policy material, and research literature to examine the implications of this decision for victim-survivors, justice processes, and institutional accountability. The focus is on structural impacts rather than individual intent.

*A note of care: this discussion involves violence, death, and systemic harm. Readers are encouraged to pause, step away, or seek support if needed. Conversations about gendered violence should not require self-sacrifice to be engaged with meaningfully.   Royal Commissions in Australia are not everyday affairs. They are formal, high-level public inquiries backed by statute (the Royal Commissions Act 1902) that can compel witnesses, gather evidence, and shine a spotlight into dark corners of policy and society. They’ve been used to examine everything from corruption, institutional abuse, deaths in custody, and even systemic violence against people with disability.   Their symbolic power is immense: they are often described as the nation’s “truth-telling” instruments. But they also come with real limitations. A Royal Commission can identify problems and recommend solutions - but it cannot itself implement culture shift, redress attitudes, or change the underlying norms that allow harm to continue. Implementation is left to governments, bureaucracies, services, and communities, with mixed results.   Historically, some Royal Commissions have reshaped entire sectors. The inquiry into institutional child sexual abuse prompted a complete overhaul of safeguarding practices in schools and sporting clubs, in theory. Many others, despite groundbreaking reports, have seen partial or slow implementation of recommendations. This recurring dynamic helps explain the complexity - and the skepticism - around calls for new commissions.   Before going further, it matters to be precise about language. This piece uses the phrase “killings of women and girls” deliberately. Not as rhetoric, but as description. These deaths are not random acts of violence; they are patterned, gendered, and overwhelmingly connected to power, entitlement, and control. Internationally, they are increasingly understood through the lens of femicide - the killing of women and girls because they are women and girls.   This framing includes cis women, trans women, girls, and gender-diverse people who are targeted because of perceived femininity or gender non-conformity. It also acknowledges that while most perpetrators are men, the focus here is not on individual morality or pathology, but on the social, legal, economic and cultural systems that repeatedly fail to interrupt harm before it becomes fatal. When the Public Says “Enough”! Royal Commissions as Mirrors of Crisis Australia has seen repeated crises that sparked formal inquiries: Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1987–1991) - an attempt to understand systemic failures in policing and corrections, and the social inequities that fed them. Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability - a two-phase national inquiry spotlighting widespread harm to people with disability. Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide - which brought to light systemic issues contributing to high suicide rates among ADF members, including sexual violence and institutional culture. South Australia’s Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, established after an epidemic of fatal and near-fatal violence, delivered 136 recommendations and has stimulated state reforms including multidisciplinary responses and better regional support services. Australia has no shortage of well-written reports. What it has struggled with is memory. Royal Commission recommendations often outlive the governments that commissioned them. Implementation is uneven, delayed, diluted, or quietly abandoned once public attention moves on. For victim-survivors and families, this creates a particular cruelty: being asked to give evidence, to relive trauma, to speak truth - with no guarantee that the resulting recommendations will ever be fully realised. Any call for a new Royal Commission must grapple honestly with this history, or risk repeating a cycle of inquiry followed by inertia. Each of these inquiries hit a nerve by exposing patterns of harm that everyday politics and policy often ignore. Any serious examination of gendered killings must also contend with who is most exposed to risk - and why. Violence does not land evenly. First Nations women, women with disability, migrant and refugee women, LGBTQIA+ women, women in regional and remote communities, and women living with poverty, housing insecurity or state surveillance are disproportionately affected. This is not because these groups are inherently vulnerable, but because they are over-represented in systems that intervene late, listen poorly, and punish disclosure. Risk accumulates at the intersections of gender, race, disability, class, geography and migration status. A national inquiry that fails to centre these intersections risks reproducing the same blind spots that have already cost lives. Australia’s Femicide Crisis - Numbers and Reality In Australia, violence against women isn’t distant. It’s statistically entrenched: Violence against women is pervasive - lifetime prevalence figures show one in two women experiencing sexual harassment, and one in three experiencing physical or sexual violence. On average one woman a week is killed by an intimate partner, and hundreds more suffer grievous bodily harm. In 2024, 37 women were killed by current or former intimate partners alone. More than 1300 women and girls have been killed in Australia since 2000 - a grim metric that activists say underscores systemic, not isolated, failure. These figures are not abstractions. They represent lives cut short, families shattered, services overwhelmed, and legal and medical systems struggling to keep up. Women’s rights advocates have been calling for a national inquiry into the killings of women and girls - a femicide-focused Royal Commission - to understand why these deaths continue at such scale and what systemic changes could prevent them. Why A Royal Commission? And Why Now? Royal Commissions are proposed in crises that overwhelm existing systems. They can: Break open taboos by allowing survivors and victims’ families to tell their stories publicly. Map patterns of systemic failure across institutions, media, law enforcement, and services. Generate concrete recommendations - from data systems to funding reforms - grounded in evidence and testimony. This is part of why some voices see a commission into gendered killings as necessary: they want a national audit of failures, not just scattered reforms. They argue that without that deep look, policymakers will keep tinkering at the edges. There’s precedent for nation-wide inquiry leading to structural shifts - but not always in clear, linear ways. Some recommendations are taken up; others linger in “implementation backlogs.” And in many cases, entrenched cultural attitudes continue to undercut legal and social reforms. This is where the limitations of commissions become apparent: they inform change, but they do not make it happen. There is another uncomfortable truth beneath these calls for inquiry: Australia does not even count the deaths of women and girls consistently. There is no single, unified national femicide data system. Instead, information is fragmented across police jurisdictions, coronial findings, health systems, family courts, and media reporting. Advocacy organisations and journalists are often left to do the work governments have not systematised. This data failure matters. What is not consistently counted is easier to minimise, misclassify, or forget. A Royal Commission could offer the first comprehensive national mapping of how, where, and why these deaths occur - not as isolated tragedies, but as a preventable pattern embedded in policy silos and institutional gaps. The Current Debate Calls for a federal Royal Commission have recently focused on other high-impact events too, such as the December 2025 Bondi Beach terror attack and rising concerns about antisemitism - sparking debate over the role and scope of national inquiries. Families of victims have called for a Commonwealth Royal Commission to examine failures and societal conditions that contributed to the violence, but the government has so far resisted, pointing to existing inquiries and criminal proceedings. This modern flashpoint underscores a broader truth: calls for Royal Commissions often arise when citizens feel existing systems are too fragmented, too slow, or too insulated from real-world harms to protect people first, and to explain what went wrong. Critics counter that commissions can be expensive, slow, and sometimes redundant with other legal processes - and that governments often don’t act decisively on their recommendations. The truth sits somewhere in the middle. They can catalyse change, but they cannot force it. Royal Commissions are powerful instruments of inquiry. They can compel testimony, expose institutional negligence, and draw together evidence that would otherwise remain siloed. They are particularly effective at naming patterns that governments and systems have learned to normalise. But inquiry is not the same thing as change. A Royal Commission can recommend reforms; it cannot enact them. It can expose culture; it cannot transform it. It can diagnose systemic misogyny, but it cannot, on its own, undo the beliefs, norms and power structures that allow violence against women and girls to persist. This distinction matters. Without it, inquiries risk being treated as endpoints rather than beginnings. Systemic Change and Attitudes: The Real Work Begins After the Report An Australian Royal Commission into killings of women and girls - if ever established - would almost certainly provide an unprecedented, comprehensive body of evidence, testimony, and structural recommendations. But the hard truth is this: Royal Commissions can document patterns, but they cannot rewrite culture. They can recommend resources and laws, but they cannot ensure implementation. They can compel testimony, but they cannot ensure everyday safety, respect, or equality. The chapters of change that matter most happen when education, community norms, policing, media framing, service funding, legal accountability, and attitudes toward gender and violence shift in tandem with policy. This is true whether the focus is gender-based violence, missing and murdered women, fatal family violence, or intersections with race and class. The commission may shine a light - but the long walk toward prevention, respect, and equitable safety happens in the meshwork of daily life: in schools, workplaces, services, homes, and hearts. So if a Royal Commission is a tool, let it be one in a broader forge of transformation. What we really need is not just another report on the shelf - but the deep, persistent work of altering the systems and social attitudes that enable violence to persist. Thoughts to Sit With in Closing Imagine a series of maps. One shows every Royal Commission since federation - lines, arrows, pages of recommendations. Another shows the lived experience of women and girls in Australia: where they live, where they walk home, where systems failed, where support lit up amidst darkness. The maps don’t overlap cleanly - but they tell complementary stories. The first is about inquiry. The second is about experience. A Royal Commission can give us the first map. It can tell us what has happened. But the second map - the one charting how we actually change society’s direction - that is authored piece by piece by communities, policymakers, families, educators and citizens reshaping norms and systems together. In the end, transforming violence into safety - and horror into understanding - requires more than a report. It requires a new kind of cartography altogether: one that marks paths toward equity, justice, and shared responsibility. Wouldn’t that be a story worth telling? Perhaps the most confronting question is not whether Australia needs another inquiry, but why so many women must die before inquiry feels politically unavoidable. We already know the risk factors. We already know where systems fracture. We already know which groups are most exposed, and which warnings go unheeded. The question, then, is not what a Royal Commission might uncover - but what we choose to do with what has already been revealed.

Attachment theory is one of psychology’s most trusted maps. Secure. Anxious. Avoidant. Disorganised. Neat categories, widely taught, easily applied. They promise insight into how we love, connect, and survive relationships.

A Professional Learning Reflection for the Start of the School Year

There is a quiet assumption embedded in many systems that work with children.

Transitions are everywhere.

In psychosocial recovery work, we are often invited into people’s lives at moments of intensity. There is courage in that invitation. There is also responsibility.

In neurodivergent life, there are two “social survival apps” many of us end up running in the background:

In community and non-profit spaces, especially those led by disabled, neurodivergent, and queer people, there is a quiet pattern many of us recognise but rarely name.