Australian Government
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
File ref: redacted
18 December 2025
Disability and the Australian Human Rights Commission Human Rights Branch
Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department DDAReview@ag.gov.au.
Dear Human Rights Branch
Subject: Review of the Disability Discrimination Act
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) welcomes the opportunity to provide this submission to the review of the Disability and Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA).
DAFF acknowledges the importance of assistance animals and the very great benefit that they can bring to people living with a disability, and supports the intention of this review to clarify the rights and obligations of duty holders and people who require an assistance animal.
DAFF is responsible for assessing and managing the biosecurity risk associated with the import of live animals, including assistance animals, into Australia. Australia’s strict biosecurity requirements are designed to prevent the arrival and spread of harmful pests and diseases, protecting the Australian community, other animals and the environment.
DAFF’s ability to support people bringing an assistance animal into Australia while appropriately managing biosecurity risk would be strengthened by greater certainty relating to matters identified in Part 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review Issues Paper, including the training and accreditation of assistance animals.
Background — operation of the Biosecurity Act 2015
Live animals, including dogs and cats, are conditionally non-prohibited goods under section 11 of the Biosecurity (Conditionally Non-Prohibited Goods) Determination 2021 (Goods Determination) and section 174 of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Biosecurity Act). Unless live dogs and cats meet the alternative conditions set out in the Goods Determination, they require an import permit to be legally imported into Australia. The Biosecurity Act 2015 provides that an import permit may be granted subject to conditions specified in that permit.
Dogs and cats entering Australia could potentially carry a range of pests and diseases which, if introduced to Australia, would have the potential to cause harm to animal health, human health and the environment (including loss of biodiversity) and the economy (including socioeconomic).
Rabies is the most significant disease associated with the importation of dogs and cats and it can be fatal in all mammals, including humans. If rabies were to establish in Australia it would have significant consequences for Australia’s way of life, human and animal populations. There are also numerous other diseases and parasites that dogs and cats can carry that would have a serious impact
ABN 34 190 894 983
Telephone redacted | Fax redacted | Web agriculture.gov.au
if they were to establish in Australia. These include canine influenza virus, leishmaniasis, leptospirosis. There are also internal and external parasites that act as vectors and therefore must be treated prior to arrival into Australia. This is to prevent other diseases such as heptozoonosis, lyme disease, piroplasmosis, tularemia, yersiniosis, and screw worm fly myiasis.
Under the Biosecurity Act, a biosecurity risk assessment must be undertaken prior to an import permit being issued. This risk assessment must apply the Appropriate Level of Protection (ALOP) which is defined under the Biosecurity Act as a high level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection aimed at reducing the biosecurity risks to a very low level, but not to zero.
When import permits are granted, they may contain a range of conditions that, when applied, will have the cumulative effect of bringing the level of unrestricted biosecurity risk down to very low. These conditions are designed to safeguard our agriculture, environment, native and domestic animals, and our people.
For most dogs and cats, depending on their country of export, a condition of their import permits is that upon arrival they are required to undergo a period of quarantine in DAFF’s Post Entry Quarantine (PEQ) facility in Mickleham, Victoria, before being released into the Australian community.
Assistance Animal import pathway – current approach and challenges
DAFF assesses import permit applications for assistance animals entering Australia. These include returning Australian animals who have accompanied their handler on an overseas trip, as well as animals assisting people with a disability who are visiting or moving permanently to Australia.
The biosecurity risk associated with the import of assistance animals is generally similar to that of live dogs and cats that are companion animals (pets).
DAFF recognises that the import conditions applied to companion animals could potentially impose significant hardship where the animal is an assistance animal supporting a person with a disability. In 2000, DAFF introduced concessional conditions (reasonable adjustment) to separately manage the importation of assistance dogs, primarily in consideration of traditional guide and hearing dogs.
While the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 currently only defines an assistance dog1, DAFF does consider concessional conditions for other assistance animals such as cats.
The range of concessional conditions available for assistance animals (subject to risk assessment) includes:
- Waiving fees associated with assessing and issuing an import permit, and all on-arrival veterinary examinations
- If permitted by the airline, allowing in-cabin travel with its handler to assist them in navigating the complexities of travel
- Allowing the handler and their assistance animal to travel directly to their state/territory of Australian residence
1 Section 5 of the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 defines a disability assistance dog as a dog:
- that has been professionally trained to assist a person with a disability; and
- that is accompanying a person with such a disability who has a certificate from a medical specialist practitioner in a speciality relevant to the disability, that that the person requires the assistance of such a dog.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2
- Allowing the handler and their assistance animal to arrive and on-arrival inspections to be conducted out of DAFF’s operational hours
- Allowing the assistance animal to undertake its post-entry quarantine period at a home residence (with no other mammals present), with permission to leave the premises for essential services
- Allowing the handler to monitor clinical symptoms observed in their assistance animal instead of monitoring by our trained departmental staff and veterinarians.
When assessing animals for eligibility for DAFF’s assistance animal pathway, in addition to all standard biosecurity requirements, DAFF requests the completion of a training form and a medical form. DAFF assesses each application on its individual merits and determines what reasonable adjustments could be applied, whilst ensuring the biosecurity risk associated with the import of the animal is managed to an acceptable level. DAFF also offers a case-management facilitation approach for handlers applying for an assistance animal import permit, and a small, dedicated team is assigned to these applications to ensure continuity.
The number of assistance animal applications requiring assessment by DAFF has increased significantly in recent years. In the three years 2019 – 2021, DAFF assessed less than 50 applications. This increased to over 250 applications in three years 2022 – 2024. The number of enquiries being received suggests this increase will continue. The type of assistance animals for which applications are made is also expanding to include emotional support animals, therapy animals and assistance cats.
In addition, applications are now being received for different modes of arrival, including cruise vessels rather than direct flights. This pathway involves additional biosecurity risks for DAFF to assess and manage, as cruise vessels usually stop at multiple ports along the way at which the handler may disembark and where the assistance animal may come into contact with other animals and vectors, and have increased exposure to biosecurity risks.
In recognition of these challenges, DAFF is continuing to review and strengthen its management of the assistance animal import pathway. The outcomes of this review will be important considerations for DAFF in this work, and DAFF intends to align its approach with this review to support consistency and clarity for people with assistance animals.
Training and Accreditation of Assistance Animals under the Disability Discrimination Act
Training and accreditation of assistance animals is an important consideration for DAFF in assessing whether it is appropriate to make reasonable adjustments to standard conditions to support the handler while still managing biosecurity risks. For example, high standards of training provide greater confidence that the animal’s standards of hygiene and behaviour make home quarantine a suitable alternative to quarantine at the PEQ facility, and provide further confidence regarding the degree of direct exposure to other animals in exporting countries.
A significant proportion of import applications for assistance animals received by DAFF relate to returning Australian animals who have travelled overseas with their handler on holidays or for business purposes. Strengthened training and accreditation requirements for Australian assistance animals as proposed in the Issues Paper would streamline assessment of these applications, and provide greater certainty and clarity both for DAFF and for people seeking to travel with assistance animals.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 3
Many of the assistance animal applications received by DAFF rely upon s9(2)(c) of the DDA as evidence of appropriate training to qualify as assistance animals. That is, that the animal is trained to assist a person with a disability to alleviate the effect of the disability, and to meet standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for an animal in a public place.
As noted in the issues paper, the current three-limbed definition of an assistance animal under the DDA can create uncertainty, including as to whether an animal has received adequate training.
Without any guidance or definition as to the standard of training or acceptable evidence of such, the breadth of possible training poses challenges for DAFF staff assessing import permit applications and may indicate that exposure risks are not effectively managed. For example, allowing home quarantine to be offered as a reasonable adjustment depends on DAFF being satisfied that, if the handler does need to leave their home for essential services, the animal is going to meet the standards of hygiene and behaviour appropriate in a public space (including public transport).
DAFF supports the option of prescribing training organisations in the regulations to support its role as a duty holder. Prescribing organisations in the regulations will provide greater assurance that an animal has received adequate training to allow it to be eligible for reasonable adjustments and concessional conditions to support the handler while managing biosecurity risks.
DAFF also supports the provision of guidance clarifying minimum training requirements for an animal to be considered as assistance animal, as well as guidance on minimum standards of evidence required to show that an animal is an assistance animal. The provision of guidance would provide a balance between clarity and certainty as to requirements, and the need for flexibility to keep pace with changing practices or standards. This guidance would need to be unambiguous and outline clear ‘must’ requirements to be effective and achieve the desired outcome. Differentiating between guide dogs, hearing dogs and psychiatric dogs, compared to emotional support and other animals, with clear guidance, would also be beneficial.
Thank you for allowing us to make a submission to your review. DAFF looks forward to working closely with you through the different committees that we are currently members of.
Yours sincerely
redacted
Kristin Sykes Assistant Secretary Animal & Biological Imports Biosecurity Animal Division
redacted
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 4