{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang3081{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Arial;}{\f1\fswiss\fprq2\fcharset0 Arial;}{\f2\froman\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\i\fs28 Discussion Paper: Assistant animals under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (the DDA)
\par 
\par Comments prepared by Blind Citizens Australia\i0 
\par 
\par In 1999, BCA responded to a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (the Commission) discussion paper in relation to the lack of clarity and certainty in the interaction between the assistance animals provision of the DDA and health and hygiene regulations.  In our response, we referred to the fact that dog guide users regularly experience discrimination.  It is still the case that BCA is contacted regularly in relation to breaches of the DDA. Dog guide users rely on their dogs to fulfil essential mobility needs.  Breaches of the DDA in this area can have extremely severe emotional impact on dog guide use and greatly reduce a person's independent mobility.
\par 
\par BCA accepts that people with other disabilities use assistance animals to alleviate the impact of their disabilities.  BCA supports the DDA's coverage of such animals under section 9. The fact that an assistance animal is used differently from how a person who is blind uses a dog guide does not derogate from this.  BCA, however, agrees that there is a lack of specification in the DDA of when section 9 covers assistance animals other than dog guides and hearing dogs.
\par 
\par BCA concurs with the concern raised in the Commission's discussion paper about confusion in relation to the interpretation of section 9 " undermining the effectiveness of legally recognised access rights for guide dogs and hearing dogs".  We also believe that retailers and other service providers have a right to be sure that they are not breaching any law in permitting access or providing services to a person using an assistance dog. Service providers also have a right to be completely assured and confident that all animals, including dog guides, are trained to a certain level, their appropriate behaviour is guaranteed and they do in fact provide disability related assistance to the user.
\par 
\par BCA is well aware of the implications of the Federal Magistrates Court decision in \ul\b Sheehan v Tin Can Bay Country Club\ulnone\b0 . The decision in this case demonstrates the need to have reform in this area.  It is unfortunate that the Federal Magistrate made erroneous statements regarding the management of dog guides in public areas. The comments by Raphael FM in relation to " no-one expecting guide dogs to be tethered" and "there must be times when a sight disabled person takes his hand off the dog's harness" are based on a mistaken premise.  A working dog guide will always be in harness and when not actually being used for mobility will always be on a leash and always under the control of the user.  Had the Federal Magistrate been aware of this, the decision might have been different.
\par 
\par We reiterate our concern that all assistance dogs should be trained to a sufficiently high standard to ensure that the generally high esteem in which dog guides are held is not diminished.  Secondly, service providers need to have, as the Commission suggests, "clear and reliable evidence of appropriate training".  Service providers cannot be expected to rely on the assurances of any individual regarding the function the dog or other animal serves and its level of training.
\par 
\par BCA would like an amendment to the DDA in relation to assistance animals to define "trained" as satisfied only when:
\par 
\par 1.  The animal is trained by an accredited organisation; and
\par 
\par 2.  The person is trained to use the animal by an accredited organisation; and
\par 
\par 3.  The training the animal has received is relevant to the user's need for the assistance animal; and
\par 
\par 4.  The user's need for the assistance animal relates to his or her disability.
\par 
\par BCA also believes that the term "trained to alleviate the effects of disability" must incorporate much more than companionship and increase in self-confidence. It is important, however, that the provisions don't discriminate against people with mental illnesses who are unlikely to require support with physical tasks or mobility. In balancing these two issues, BCA believes that the process of only providing legal rights to users of assistance animals from accredited agencies should provide sufficient assurance to service providers even in situations where a person's disability is not immediately obvious. This will also enable people with disabilities to use their assistance animals with greater confidence of their rights being recognised and respected. The State and Territory card schemes should reflect points 1-4 above to ensure the scheme's credibility. Relevant documentation would need to be completed by the user's doctor or specialist, the accredited agency and the proposed user before a card would be granted.
\par 
\par BCA notes the Commission's comments that "HREOC is not in a position to assess all assistance animals itself, and it is not expected that the Attorney-General or his Department or other Commonwealth body would be in a position to undertake this role."  BCA believes that State and Territory governments should develop schemes that enable organisations which train animals to assist people with disabilities to gain accreditation. A card similar to the card which is used by dog guide users should be issued to people using assistance animals and should be carried at all times the animal is being worked in public.
\par 
\par BCA appreciates that there might be some reluctance from State and Territories to develop such schemes. It does not seem feasible at this stage for the Commission or the Federal Attorney-General to provide an accreditation process for States and Territories which have not developed accreditation processes. Perhaps it would be feasible in these circumstances for the Federal Department of Health to administer the function of accreditation of agencies. It should be remembered that it would be the role of the Department to accredit the agency not to assess individual users; that would be the responsibility of the agency and it would perform this function according to the requirements set out in the relevant schemes.  There are many examples of the administration of programs in the provision of health, welfare and employment services.  It is mentioned in the Discussion Paper that some States have already made some progress in developing schemes, and it is to be hoped that with lobbying by people with disabilities and the encouragement of the Commission, that more States and Territories will follow suit.
\par 
\par \pard\nowidctlpar\b\f1 Interaction between the DDA and Health and Hygeine Laws
\par \b0 
\par BCA rejects the option of prescribing State and Territory health and hygiene laws under s.47(3) of the DDA.
\par 
\par As an organisation of blind people who are the major users of assistance animals, BCA remains concerned that the prescription of State and Territory health and hygiene laws will send the wrong message, particularly to retailers in food outlets, and undermine public education efforts promoting the acceptance of assistance animals. It continues to be our experience in handling guide dog access complaints that the respondents invariably raise public health laws as their initial reaction and do not look at any documentation or card authorising the dog's entry and do not seem to care whether their decision is right in law.
\par 
\par \f0 In relation to the interaction between the DDA and health and hygiene laws, States and Territories should be notified about potential contradictions and encouraged to address inconsistencies. \f1  States and Territories should amend their health and hygiene laws to the effect that a person is not liable under those laws for permitting a person accompanied by a trained and accredited animal access to premises or access to goods, services or facilities and should widely publicise this aspect of their laws.
\par 
\par \pard\f0 If this occurs there appears to be little to be gained by people with disabilities in having such laws prescribed. There also appears to be little value in pursuing this issue prior to any amendment to section 9. People with disabilities using dog guides, hearing dogs or other assistance animals would greatly benefit from an education campaign explaining the rights enjoyed by users of these animals. In any event, there must be no diminution of the rights currently enjoyed by dog guide users and the focus of any law reform process should be the elimination of discrimination against people with disabilities. 
\par 
\par \pard\sb100\sa100 The prescribing of any law under the DDA should be approached with extreme caution.\f2  \f1 HREOC seems to be only considering the issue of health and hygiene laws as they affect rights of people using assistance animals. Before any law is prescribed there would need to be a evaluation of the full ramifications of this for people with disabilities as the contradiction between health and hygiene laws regarding the use of assistance animals might not be the only contradiction. People with disabilities might have other rights affected by prescription. 
\par \pard\nowidctlpar\fs24 
\par \fs28 BCA believes that the suggested clarifications to s.9 and the adoption of laws or protocols for the accreditation of organisations training assistance animals and their users should obviate the need to prescribe State/Territory health and hygiene regulations under s.47(3).
\par 
\par \b Conclusion
\par \b0 
\par BCA has circulated this response amongst dog guide agencies and has received much support for the position we have taken on issues raised by the discussion paper. \f0 We thank you for the opportunity of providing these comments and we would welcome the opportunity to have further discussions on this issue.
\par 
\par 
\par }