Response to Disability Discrimination Act Review | External submission

Animals Helping Humans Animals Helping Humans

Advancing the understanding, acceptance and accessibility of animal-assisted services for those in need.

Submission of: Animal Therapies Limited (ATL) — response to Issues Paper Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) Review

Date of submission: 24 October 2025

A) Purpose of Submission

Animal Therapies Ltd (ATL) is advocating for greater clarity about definitions, terms and usage under the DDA to support people with disability. Our purpose is to ensure that people with disability who rely on a guide, hearing or assistance animal can actively and easily access public places and opportunities without discrimination. In doing so this will create genuine and equal public access, community participation and economic rights for people with disability.

ATL’s submission has identified several current and ongoing issues related to DDA provisions. We are committed to maintaining a ‘can do’ collaborative attitude and where possible, have provided viable proposals for effective, practical and relevant reform.

B) About ATL

ATL is the national peak body for the Animal-Assisted Services (AAS) sector. ATL has played a pivotal role in standardising language across the sector and developing standards — including working with the NDIA and Commonwealth Department of Social Services (DSS) to ensure recognition that animal-assisted therapy continues to be an accepted NDIS support. Further information about ATL and its Board is available on its website at https://animaltherapies.org.au/.

Our core activities include:

exploring how registered health professionals and other fully insured professionals work alongside animals as an adjunct to their primary scope of practice to support people with disability. 1
advocating for the rights of people with disability who rely on a guide, hearing or assistance animal to alleviate the impacts of their disability.

1 ATL’s public consultation submission dated 21 July 2024 re: section 4, Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (the Transitional Rules). Available on request.

C) Scope and limitations of submission

ATL primarily operates on a voluntary basis. This submission has been overseen by Ms Samantha Nix of Nix Consulting Services on behalf of ATL. Ms Nix is a former NSW Solicitor and was the former Principal Advisor of the Guide, Hearing and Assistance Team at the department previously known as the Queensland Department of Seniors, Disability Services and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (Qld DSDSATSIP). Due to funding and resource limitations, ATL has been unable to undertake a full and robust review of all 15 recommendations that the Disability Royal Commission put forward about changing the DDA. This submission therefore focuses on:

Section 4 of the DDA - medical deficit-based definition of disability versus social definitional models
Section 5 of the DDA - Recommendation 4.23 (Amending the definition of direct discrimination)
Section 6 of the DDA - Recommendation 4.24 (Amending the definition of indirect discrimination)
Positive Duty requirements under the DDA - Recommendations 4.27 and 4.28 (Creating a Positive duty for duty holders to eliminate discrimination)
Adjustments under the DDA - Recommendations 4.25 and 4.26 (Strengthening the duty to provide adjustments)
Section 11 of the DDA - Recommendation 4.32 (Amending the definition of and considerations for unjustifiable hardship)
Section 22(2) of the DDA - Recommendation 7.2 (Amending Exclusionary discipline and suspension)
Assistance Animal provisions under the DDA

D) ATL’s position on the definition of disability under section 4 of the DDA

ATL considers it essential that the definition of disability within the DDA is sufficiently clear and descriptive to ensure that duty holders have an accurate understanding of what constitutes a disability. This clarity is critical to support compliance, uphold the intent of the legislation, and prevent both direct and indirect discrimination against individuals.

While ATL aspires to a society in which legislation such as the DDA would no longer be required, one where social constructs of “normality” no longer influence perceptions of inclusion, it is recognised that this ideal it yet to be achieved. Accordingly, robust and protective legislative frameworks such as the DDA remain necessary to safeguard the rights of individuals with disabilities and promote equitable participation.

ATL advocates for a legislative definition that appropriately balances the following principles:

Identification: The definition should facilitate the identification of individuals whose ability to participate in everyday community life is impeded or restricted, as assessed from the perspective of a reasonable person.
Clarity: The definition should provide sufficient precision and accessibility to enable reasonable persons, including duty holders and members of the judiciary, to determine consistently whether an individual meets the definitional criteria.

Medical intervention: The definition should not exclude or diminish recognition of a disability solely because it arises from, or is associated with, a medical condition or a medical intervention diagnosed by a qualified medical professional. It would be remiss - and potentially negligent - for the legislature or society to assume that a medical diagnosis equates to a declaration of deficiency. In many cases, a diagnosis represents a pathway to treatment, management, or support rather than an indication of deficiency. The focus of the definition should therefore remain on the impact of the condition or intervention on an individual’s capacity to participate fully in everyday life, rather than on its medical classification or origin.

In ATL’s view, a definition framed in this way would strengthen the DDA’s effectiveness by ensuring both fairness and clarity in its application.

Most significantly, ATL’s submission recommends that any amendments to the definition of disability be accompanied by a comprehensive suite of educational materials and supporting policies. These resources should be readily accessible to duty holders, members of the public, and those most directly affected by the changes. Such measures would minimise ambiguity, reduce uncertainty, and promote consistent understanding and application of the legislation across the broader community.

E) ATL’s position on amending the definition of direct discrimination under section 5 of the DDA

It is ATL’s position that the comparator test should be removed for the following reasons:

It places an unreasonable and excessive evidentiary burden on complainants, often requiring them to establish the respondent’s intent - an expectation that is both impractical and unjust for a person with disability.
It fails to adequately protect the privacy and confidentiality of third parties who may be drawn into the comparison process, creating unnecessary risks and potential harm.
In practice, there is frequently a distinct power imbalance between complainants and respondents, with respondents typically having far greater access to financial, legal, and institutional resources. This imbalance further embeds disadvantage and undermines the accessibility of justice for people with disability.

As a matter of fairness and equity, ATL strongly recommends that any amendment to the definition adopt the approach of the Commonwealth’s Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA) regarding the burden of proof and evidentiary requirements. Such reform would ensure a more balanced, accessible, and just framework for people with disability seeking redress under the law.

F) ATL’s position on amending the elements of section 6 indirect discrimination under the DDA

It is ATL’s position that the subjective reasonableness test under section 6(3) of the DDA should be replaced with a test of “legitimacy” and “reasonableness” having regard to the circumstances of the case. We do not see the value in adding proportionality to the criterion because once legitimacy and reasonableness have, or have not been established, it should not matter what level of adjustment has been made because indirect discrimination will have been established. A test of proportionality provides an exception/justification to discrimination – when the essence of indirect discrimination lies in the very fact it has already occurred on a subconscious and unwitting scale. If a test of proportionality is to be applied at all, it should be confined to cases of direct discrimination.

G) ATL’s position on creating a positive duty to prevent discrimination under the DDA

It is ATL’s position that all businesses, corporate and incorporated entities, and government agencies should be subject to a positive duty to prevent discrimination. People with disability live, work, and participate in every aspect of community life, and it is therefore essential that all sectors actively contribute to creating inclusive, non-discriminatory environments.

While most workplaces now provide training that raises awareness of discrimination based on gender and sexuality, equivalent understanding of disability discrimination remains limited. Corporate Australia must therefore accept responsibility for developing and implementing comprehensive disability awareness and inclusion training for all employees, particularly as part of induction programs for new staff.

Similarly, small businesses, especially those in the tourism and hospitality sectors, must be held accountable for both their actions and inactions when interacting with people with disability — including those who rely on a guide, hearing, or assistance animal. Ensuring awareness and compliance in these everyday encounters is critical to preventing discrimination and promoting equality across the community.

ATL is uniquely positioned to comment on the limitations and exceptions to a positive duty to prevent discrimination, particularly in relation to guide, hearing, and assistance animals.

It is our view that legitimate grounds for discrimination should only arise where there is clear and demonstrable evidence that the presence of such an animal would compromise safety or hygiene—whether of the environment, other animals, or humans. Even in these rare circumstances, all reasonable steps must be taken to provide a safe and accessible alternative for the person with disability, ensuring their rights: of accessibility; social and economic participation; and dignity, are preserved to fullest extent possible.

H) ATL’s position on “adjustments” under the DDA

ATL cannot provide comment on legislation other than the DDA with respect to Recommendations 4.25 and 4.26.

To ensure clarity for duty holders about provisions which refer to “reasonable adjustments”, ATL submits that the word “adjustment” should replace the current terminology, “reasonable adjustment”. This will eliminate potential ambiguities and will limit the subjectivity of any adjustment provisions within the DDA to their intended purpose – namely, to a test of unjustifiable hardship of which the onus is placed on duty holder to prove.

ATL supports a position which continues to protect the privacy of people with disability, but acknowledges that to make an adjustment, the duty holder must be made aware of the adjustments that are being sought – and that onus should remain with the person with disability (or their carer) to disclose.

I) ATL’s position about the definition of and considerations for unjustifiable hardship under section 11 of the DDA

It is ATL’s position that any definition of unjustifiable hardship, in its operation as defence, must place a heavy and onerous burden of proof on the duty holder to first prove it will experience hardship, and subsequently that such hardship will be unjustifiable. To avoid ambiguity, any legislative definition must be clear about the two limbs as they relate to “hardship” and “unjustifiability”. The person with disability must also have a right to respond to any defence of unjustifiable hardship that the duty holder has raised.

While we cannot suggest an exhaustive list of factors the DDA should include, we do suggest the following as guidance only:

the resources available to the duty holder, including its financial circumstances, and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made by the duty holder, comparable to any relevant profit margins
the duty holder’s role in a local, state, national or international community, including consideration of its ethical obligations
the extent to which the duty holder has scoped/researched the required adjustments and discussed the requirements with the person with disability - and where relevant, balanced against the person’s applicable skills, qualifications and experience
whether the duty holder has an existing inclusive awareness/disability support policies/plans and/or education programs to prevent disability discrimination and whether such have ever been implemented or used to support a person with disability
any previous or current behaviours of the duty holder regarding its attitude to preventing disability discrimination

any previous or current publications, media releases or statements made by the duty holder which are relevant to the facts of a specific case.

Assistance animal example

An accountant, redacted: s47F - name, who has an assistance animal, will need to take out her animal for toileting every two hours. redacted: s47F - name leaves her workstation for approximately 30 minutes longer each day than other Accountants. This reduces the billable hours redacted: s47F - name can charge to clients by 150 minutes less than other Accountants throughout the working week. redacted: s47F - name is an accredited specialist in commercial accounting and has extensive experience. The firm that redacted: s47F - name works for has told her that her billable hours are not the same as other Accountants so she will have to “find a way” to ensure they are.
Aside from the obvious issues with the duty holder’s demands placed on redacted: s47F - name, the first issue is whether the firm has experienced hardship. In all senses it has established a hardship, insofar there is some economic loss for the firm. The second question of unjustifiability then must be considered. The firm’s defence is simply that it is experiencing unjustifiable hardship because of the economic loss.
redacted: s47F - name requires a right to respond, because she was solely responsible for bringing the firm three new clients over the last 12 months as a result of her commercial accounting networks. While redacted: s47F - name did not always personally undertake the new clients’ work, the firm ultimately had an increased profit margin because of the new clients.

In this instance, whilst a prima facie hardship case was able to easily be established by the duty holder, it was also able to be established that redacted: s47F is not unjustifiable.

J) ATL’s position on amending exclusionary discipline and suspensions under section 22(2) of the DDA

ATL has considered the inclusion of definitions relating to exclusionary discipline and suspension under the DDA only in respect of primary and secondary (high school) education. It is our position that the Commonwealth does not have the constitutional power to include definitions about exclusionary discipline and suspension in the context of state and territory public school environments. ATL further submits that even if such power existed, the administering agency, department and/or commission does not have the resources:

a) to establish the impacts on state and territory public/private schools in an educational context.

b) equivalent to states and territories who have dedicated agencies to support (and make modifications) for students with disability.

Notwithstanding the above points, it is ATL’s view that section 22(2) of the DDA, (as it currently reads and operates), sufficiently ensures the unlawfulness of an educational authority to discriminate against a student on the ground of the student’s disability.

The only suggestion we would add is that the AHRC make each state and territory department (that is responsible for education) proactively aware of the relevant DDA provisions so they can better understand, and incorporate, anti-discrimination in their own education legislation and policies.

K) ATL’s position on amending Assistance Animal provisions under the DDA

ATL submits that substantial anendments to the DDA are essential to ensure the full protection of the rights of people with disability who rely on an assistance animal.

In this section, ATL addresses the below DDA provisions having regard to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Disability Royal Commission) and the questions posed in the Issues Paper.

Section 9(2) - Carer, assistant, assistance animal and disability aid definitions
Section 54A - Assistance animals

i) People with an assistance animal primarily rely on section 9(2)(c) of the DDA

ATL is unaware of the number of complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) concerning discrimination against people with disability who rely on an assistance animal. However, given that only four of the eight states and territories across the Commonwealth have legislation that satisfies the first limb of section 9(2) of the DDA, it can be reasonably assumed that the majority of people who rely on an assistance animal must instead rely on the third limb of section 9(2) for protection.

The DDA’s assistance animal provisions, like much of the Act, operate reactively — that is, a person with disability must first experience discrimination before any remedial action can be taken. This approach is inherently counterintuitive and places an undue burden of proof on the person with disability to establish discrimination. By contrast, some states and territories issue access cards to people who rely on an assistance animal, which function to safeguard their rights proactively and help prevent discrimination from occurring in the first place. For the DDA to operate effectively and genuinely safeguard the rights of people who rely on an assistance animal to alleviate the effects of their disability, its administrators must make every effort to:

educate duty holders about the rights and responsibilities associated with assistance animals; and
ensure that people who rely on the DDA’s anti-discrimination provisions can access public places with the same equivalence, ease and confidence as those who benefit from well-established accessibility standards, such as wheelchair access.

This could be achieved by creating a nationally consistent accreditation or recognition framework for assistance animals, supported by clear education and compliance measures from the Commonwealth. Such a framework would provide clarity for both people with disability and duty holders, promote uniform standards across jurisdictions, and shift the operation of the DDA from a reactive model to one that is proactive and preventative in nature. [See below for further information about ATL’s position regarding Assistance Animals Working Group (AAWG) principles.]

ii) Current and ongoing issues with section 9(2)(c)(ii) of the DDA - key gap regarding standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for an assistance animal in a public place

There are currently no clear parameters defining what constitutes appropriate standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for an animal in a public place specific to assistance animals. This is a key shortcoming of the DDA, as it creates ambiguity, confusion, and a lack of clarity for both people who rely on an assistance animal and duty holders. Notwithstanding the principles established by the Assistance Animals Working Group (AAWG), these principles still lack meaningful operational value or practical application in a way that clarifies what standards of hygiene and behaviour are expected in public settings from an assistance animal.

It is important to note that the basic standards of hygiene and behaviour expected of animals in public places can, in most cases, be readily achieved by a well-trained pet dog. This is evidenced by the increasing number of cafés, shops, and public facilities that now permit the presence of animals in the company of their owners.

However, the factors that distinguish an assistance animal from a well-trained pet dog that meet standards of hygiene and behaviour are both substantial and multifaceted. Beyond the primary distinction that an assistance animal performs specific tasks to alleviate the effects of a person’s disability, there are numerous additional and differentiating characteristics. The below points are provided as brief examples only:

Response to environmental stimuli: An assistance animal remains calm, stable, and focused in the presence of unexpected loud noises, movement, or other potentially startling events. By contrast, a well-trained pet dog may exhibit a startled response or react defensively.
Behaviour around other animals: An assistance animal is conditioned to disregard and not engage with other animals, regardless of proximity or provocation. In comparison, even a well-trained pet dog will often attempt to interact, particularly with other dogs.
Task-specific responsiveness: An assistance animal undergoes rigorous, targeted training to recognise, anticipate, or alert its handler to disability-related triggers, hazards, or medical events. A well-trained pet dog does not receive such specialised conditioning or task-specific instruction.

These distinctions illustrate the exceptional behavioural reliability and specialised training of assistance animals, which far exceed the standards required of a well-trained animal in public spaces.

iii) Consumer safeguards and protection for people with disability under the DDA - exploitation through misinformation and regulatory gaps

There are numerous “training” entities and individuals across the Commonwealth who make misleading guarantees to people with disability that, upon completing a training program with their organisation, they and their dog will automatically acquire public access rights under the DDA. Many of these organisations and individuals charge exorbitant fees and misrepresent how the DDA operates, making claims that are not compatible with the provisions of the Act in either legal or practical terms.

ATL holds the position that the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) must work collaboratively with relevant Commonwealth agencies and departments to ensure that vulnerable people with disability are not exploited by such “trainers.” This includes “trainers who make claims such as:

that they are an accredited training organisation, entity or individual under the DDA; and/or
that training with their organisation guarantees public access rights for the person and their assistance animal in any or all state and territory jurisdictions; and/or
that completing a Public Access Test (PAT) with their organisation ensures compliance with the DDA; and/or
that they are accredited to undertake PATs under state or territory legislation and therefore guarantee or make representations that this satisfies requirements under section 9(2)(c) of the DDA 2.

While ATL acknowledges the Commonwealth’s intention to delegate certain implementation and regulatory responsibilities to the states and territories, the DDA remains Commonwealth legislation. It is therefore incumbent upon the Commonwealth to ensure its administration is consistent, accurate and protective of the rights of people with disability – including from a consumer protection perspective.

ATL submits that the establishment of a prescribed list of training organisations — that is, organisations which train assistance animals rather than merely provide certification through a Public Access Test (PAT) — pursuant to the second limb of section 9(2) of the DDA, could potentially reduce the prevalence of trainers or training organisations making false or misleading claims regarding DDA protections.

We note that such a list would not preclude individuals who have trained their own assistance animal, or who have engaged an unlisted trainer, from relying on section 9(2)(c) of the DDA. Rather, the purpose of establishing a prescribed list within the regulations would be to provide a clear and reliable pathway for those who wish to ensure their assistance animal is trained and accredited by an organisation recognised under the DDA.

iv) Minimum Standards of Evidence / Defining “training” and “accreditation” – potential reforms to section 54A(5) of the DDA

ATL agrees with the Issues Paper, insofar that setting specific training requirements such as those set out on page 84 would be too prescriptive because Handler/assistance animal teams learn at different paces to achieve milestones in training programs/regimes.

ATL submits that legislated standards of evidence, however, should form part of any reforms to the DDA and we would recommend that these include evidence loosely based on requirements under Queensland’s Guide, Hearing and Assistance Dog Act 2009 when a dog is being certified and when a trainer/training

2 ATL acknowledges that the results of a PAT could and should serve as evidence to support a person who relies on section 9(2)(c) of the DDA.

organisation is being reviewed under regulatory provisions. For example, a person with disability who has an assistance animal should be able to produce the following, as a minimum:

the type and breed of the animal, as well as all veterinary and vaccination/titre records confirming its fitness and suitability to be an assistance animal; and
the training program/regime it followed — and who trained it; and
records as to how the assistance animal was trained to alleviate the effects of disability and what it does to assist its handler; and
records as to how the animal reached standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for an assistance animal in a public place 3; and
any records about assessments/PATs.

The above list is not exhaustive; however, it does clarify the types of evidence a duty holder could potentially request under section 54A(5) of the DDA with respect to section 9(2)(c). The adoption of any legislated standards of evidence must also be balanced against:

the practicalities of a person with disability being able to produce such in the context of every-day activities (such as visiting a shopping centre); and
how the duty holder interprets and considers the evidence about the assistance animal and the potential for ongoing confusion

It is ATL’s recommendation that the AAWG undertake comprehensive and practical implication mapping and scoping of training standards and accreditation frameworks - including the perspectives of people with disability, trainers, industry bodies (as duty holders), regulators, and advocacy organisations, prior to implementing any reforms. This will ensure that any future framework is evidence-based, inclusive, and capable of achieving easily understood parameters for both people with an assistance animal and duty holders.

L) Other factors about Assistance Animals for the Commonwealth to consider

i) Consistency with and across other Commonwealth legislation, policy and practices

ATL notes that while the definition of an assistance animal under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (the Transitional Rules) is consistent with that contained in the DDA, its operational application is not. ATL continues to receive numerous complaints and enquiries from handlers whose NDIS funding has been withdrawn, despite their assistance animal having previously been recognised as a support under the Transitional Rules.

3 Refer to Part K (ii) of this submission for further information about standards of hygiene and behaviour for assistance animals.

Similarly, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) appears to administer an assistance animal program for eligible veterans which inconsistently, and at times arbitrarily, applies the definition of an assistance animal as set out in the DDA.

ATL submits that any definition of an assistance animal established under the DDA must be applied consistently across all Commonwealth legislation, policy and programs to avoid confusion, ambiguity, and inequitable treatment of people with disability.

ii) Minimum safeguards for people with an assistance animal

ATL contends that the DDA must establish minimum safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and wellbeing of people who rely on an assistance animal. These safeguards should include, at a minimum:

Mandatory suitability and integrity checks: Requiring that any person or organisation involved in the training of assistance animals for people with disability holds the relevant state or territory criminal history clearances or checks as prescribed under applicable disability or safeguarding laws.
Mental Health First Aid Accreditation (for psychosocial disabilities): Requiring that any person or organisation involved in the training of assistance animals for people with a psychosocial disability hold nationally recognised mental health first aid training.
Accountability for misleading conduct: Ensuring that any trainer or organisation that makes false or misleading representations suggesting that DDA protections are guaranteed or automatically conferred upon a Handler/assistance animal team, may be subject to investigation and enforcement under Commonwealth consumer protection laws.

These safeguards are critical to ensuring that people with disability are not exposed to harm, exploitation, or financial loss through unregulated or unethical practices. ATL continues to receive reports of individuals and organisations misrepresenting their capacity to train or accredit assistance animals, leading to confusion, distress, and, in some cases, the loss of access to public places where essential supports reside. Establishing clear national safeguards would promote integrity, consistency, and public confidence in the assistance animal sector, while reinforcing the intent and protections afforded by the DDA.

iii) Clarity about assistance animals versus animal-assisted services

ATL submits that the DDA needs to clearly establish the parameters - or the “line in the sand” - for what constitutes an assistance animal, without diminishing the important role that animals other than dogs may play in animal-assisted services. It is essential that the DDA’s definition of an assistance animal remains distinct from animals involved in animal-assisted services 4, which:

are provided as a mediated, guided or facilitator-led practices, programs and human services that incorporate specially qualified animals into therapeutic, skill building interventions and/or supportive processes for the broader purpose of reasonable and necessary supports for a person with a disability; and

4 Refer to footnote 1 for further information.

require the facilitative presence of a service provider (under the NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits) who holds the appropriate and required qualifications to deliver reasonable and necessary supports for a person with disability. (See footnote 1 for further information).

By drawing this distinction:

the NDIS can retain its purpose — by recognising the valuable but different role of animals engaged in animal-assisted services as a NDIS support; and
simultaneously, the DDA can protect the integrity of the assistance animal framework.

iv) Assistance animals other than dogs

If animals other than dogs are to be recognised as serving to alleviate the effects of a person’s disability - and where a handler seeks to rely on section 9(2)(c) of the DDA, the AHRC must develop clear, evidence-based guidelines to support consistent application and understanding.

These guidelines should be grounded in credible research and practical examples to ensure that both people with disability and duty holders understand how such recognition operates in real-world contexts. Without this clarity, there is significant risk of confusion, inconsistent interpretation, and potential disputes regarding the legitimacy or acceptance of animals other than dogs as assistance animals under the DDA.

ATL further recommends that the AHRC develop these guidelines in close consultation with disability representative organisations, assistance animal training bodies, veterinary and animal behaviour experts, and relevant Commonwealth and state agencies. This collaborative approach would ensure the guidelines are practical, evidence-informed and reflective of lived experience, thereby promoting fairness, consistency, and public confidence in their application.

v) The need for a broad educative approach to understanding the DDA

ATL submits that the AHRC as the agency responsible for administering the DDA - must undertake proactive education and awareness initiatives across communities and within high-risk sectors. Such initiatives are essential if the DDA is to transition from a primarily reactive framework to one that effectively embeds positive obligations on duty holders.

Education and networking efforts should prioritise sectors where discrimination against people with assistance animals is most prevalent or likely to occur, including transport, hospitality, housing, health care, education, and public access environments. This should include clear, practical guidance on the rights and responsibilities of both people with disability and duty holders, examples of best practice, and mechanisms for early intervention and resolution – to prevent discrimination from occurring in the first place.

Proactive and targeted education would not only promote compliance but also foster a broader cultural shift toward inclusion and accessibility - ensuring the DDA operates as a preventative, rather than a remedial/reactive instrument after discrimination has occurred.

M) Clarity around the DDA and accessibility for people with disability who rely on an assistance animal

ATL firmly maintains that the DDA requires targeted and substantive reform to effectively protect the rights of people with disability – particularly those who rely on an assistance animal. The current legislative and administrative framework is fragmented, reactive, and inconsistent across jurisdictions, leaving many individuals vulnerable to discrimination, exploitation, and unnecessary barriers to genuine social and economic participation. By adopting a proactive, nationally consistent approach led and implemented by the Commonwealth – underpinned by education, clarity, and accountability - the DDA can be transformed into a legislative safeguard that genuinely upholds equality, dignity, and inclusion for people who rely on assistance animals to alleviate the effects of their disability.

N) DDA deficiencies and ATL’s proposal

ATL remains committed to working collaboratively with local, state and territory, and Commonwealth agencies, as well as with the private sector and industry, to ensure that people with disability who rely on an assistance animal have access to the most effective therapies, interventions, and supports.

This submission has identified several critical deficiencies within the DDA that extend beyond the recommendations of both the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and the Issues Paper.

As previously noted, ATL is a charitable organisation, with most of its consultants contributing on a pro bono basis approximately 80% of the time, while maintaining primary employment, often within local or state government.

ATL takes pride in providing only accurate, evidence-based information and supporting the education of duty holders to promote compliance and inclusion under the DDA. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss funding and collaboration opportunities with the AHRC on strengthening education and awareness initiatives relating to assistance animals.

We consider this to be an essential step in improving the practical understanding and consistent application of the DDA. In our view, enhanced partnership models - particularly those that draw on the expertise of specialist organisations such as ATL - would help to ensure that public resources are used effectively and that education initiatives deliver meaningful outcomes for both people with disability and duty holders.

ATL will shortly commence its Summer Research Program for law students and graduates, with findings expected to be published in March 2026. This research, overseen by redacted: s47F - name who brings extensive experience across local and state government agencies, will focus on the intersection of assistance animal regulation, public policy, and disability rights. ATL looks forward to sharing these findings with the AHRC and contributing to evidence-based decision-making that will inform future reforms for both the DDA and the AAWG principles.

O) In conclusion……

ATL appreciates the opportunity to contribute to this public consultation process and would welcome the opportunity to meet with Australian Human Rights Commissioner Rosemary Kayess and the Hon Michelle Rowland MP to further discuss potential reforms to the DDA in the assistance animal space.

As an organisation grounded in lived experience, ATL can speak to a broad range of issues that affect people with disability, particularly those who rely on an assistance animal. We are happy to provide further information or clarification on any of the matters raised in this submission.

Please do not hesitate to contact myself, ATL’s CEO and founder directly via the details provided below and copy redacted: s47F - email.

Yours Sincerely,

redacted: s47F - name/signature

CEO redacted: s47F - name

| Animal Therapies Ltd | ABN: 25 624 565 859