TO: The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission
From: Disability Aid Dogs Queensland.
Subject: Discussion Paper re DDA 1992
My name is Alex Van Oeveren, and have been training dogs for over 20 years. After becoming disabled some years ago, I searched for a training area that could help me with my dream of an "Aid Dog", but I could find nobody, even via the Human Rights areas in Queensland and Federal. I was to do this alone, and with the help of an International Dog Trainer and Behaviourist who assessed my dog as I went on, I trained my Collie Rough for my own needs as an Aid Dog.
It took me over five years from the "Thought Inception" to where I am now, four dogs rejected for unsuitability, carefully assessing for behavioural and suitability in this most demanding of canine training - to be a "Disability Aid Dog". So I have done it all on my own, research - International Dog Training Standards - Law - all when I was suffering from a debilitating Neurological Medical disorder, often training my dog on a walking stick.
Now well aware of the abysmal lack of standards and facilities within Australia in regards to courses that are recognised for dog trainers, not to mention facilities for training "Disability or Assistance Dogs" in Australia. I have become ever more aware of the acute need of solidarity amongst training facilities and organisations to forge much needed standards for this country. The somewhat unfortunate attack by the NSW and ACT Guide Dogs Association toward "Assistance Animals" is somewhat predictable but regrettable. The inference by them is that blind persons and their dog are trained to work as a unit, and that the Guide Dog is trained to alleviate the effects of the blind handler's disability are so true, but to even suggest that an "assistance animal" is not needed as is a guide dog is a somewhat ignorant and uninformed comment. If one wanted to be very "bitchy", it could also be argued that a Guide Dog in a supermarket is a nonsense, as a blind person cannot see the merchandise, so needs a carer present to so choose the products and food, so why the dog? This also would be an ignorant statement of ill-informed garble. What we all need is to identify the facets of urgent attention in this area and address them AS A TEAM - TOGETHER! Not nit-picking and posing uninformed arguments that display a formidable lack of co-operation! Under this discussion paper, we have the opportunity to put into law, and into place, the world's most effective criterion, coming from the "back of the school", where dog training laws are concerned, to world leaders. It is readily admitted by anyone with intelligence in this "arena" that far too many dog attacks occur, and that any "medical assist dog training" should be done by capable dog trainers and behaviourists, as "backyarders" have the potential to be dangerous and God Forbid - an attack on a Guide Dog or other Disability Aid Dog could well occur with devastating results to us all! The public image of the "Medical Dog" is to be guarded zealously - put in place at enormous human and emotional cost by The Guide Dogs ASS. over many years of enviable operation and zealously guarded standards.
But The Time Has Come *** We Must Work Together
Our only real chance of success is the setting down of UNIFORM STANDARDS!
I read the submissions attached, but only ASDOG has had the reality of the problem to post some sort of answers to this whole sorry saga. When the laws were put into place in 1992, they were so implemented by reflection of the Australian Constitution via treaties signed by our government with the United Nations in reference to the calls of Human Rights for all member nations of the UN; Hence, we are working with reflective constitutional law, and every care needs to be exercised not to contravene the rights OF ALL disabled Australians. We are discussing the very platform of federal legislation that, if denied fact of effect in law, will denude all effects of any "Assistance or Disability" trained dogs - this means that we are ALL finished, along with any further training of dogs for the disabled! HIGH STAKES INDEED!
As I have successfully trained a Medical Aid Dog, am setting up "Disability Aid Dogs", and entirely concur with the commission in principal that clear guidelines need to be set, and definitions of "Training" that will execute a lawful duty to ensure correct training standards to protect the public in issues of safety and health. The DDA also, in my opinion, should remove any reference to the word "Animal" and just specify "Dogs". This is because there is already enough confusion about the "Trained Dogs" situation in this country, without running headlong into a formidable and undefinable array, within the words "Trained Animal", as we have no standards nor recognised courses or university level qualifications of behaviourism, training or handling for the K9 levels, let alone other animals in this country; This, in my opinion, let"s loose a literal "Zoo" of probabilities and associated complications that are beyond comprehension.
Having said that, it is my absolute belief that any "dogs" trained to alleviate, let it be for the deaf or disabled, need a code of standards set by careful co-ordination with experts and authorities as is possible in this country. This needs to be tempered by the thought and risks of "denuding" all meaning from the "Trained Animals Act" by "knee jerk reactions" that will without doubt, directly work in contradiction to the very platform of need that instigated these very laws - The United Nations Charter For Human Rights - in this case, directly associated with the most disadvantaged, discriminated against people in our proud nation - The Disabled.
So let us all move forward, and not ret-respectfully, to a new understanding and level of legislation that will demand high standards, but ensures the rights of the disabled - within sympathetic and compassionate ideals and attitudes - therein framing new laws to help, not hinder our fellow Australians that are DISABLED.
As is the case in Australia today, anyone can breed, train and "go professional" in the realms of dog husbandry, a treacherous road of genetics, bloodlines and behavioural outcomes. The Guide Dog Associations are quite rightly working to protect their hard fought "public image", and therefore do not want inadequately or badly trained dogs impugning those standards by risking dog attacks or poor public behavioural attitudes in such dogs. It is up to us, the new comers on the block, to convince the Guide Dog people that we ARE responsible - working with similar standards of behavioural assessment and strict training codes that will ensure the "quality" of training and outcome usage of our dogs! Accreditation, a word that is so easily thrown about in our modern world, but rarely assures anybody of the reality of public safety and health; Let us lead by example, working together, then we will become respected with other associations willing to be affiliated with us!
Overview Of Issues:
Section 9 DDA is ambiguous and open to abuse. The very term "Trained To Assist" has no definition, and as previously stated, should be founded on sound and tested standards. In this arena, Australia is far behind the rest of the "developed world nations", and should, with some carefully considered amendments, apply the international dog training standards. The word "Alleviate" is ambiguous and under considerable debate. Consider - "or any other DOG trained, as per the definitions that constitute a trained dog in section 9a, to assist the aggrieved person to relieve, ease and assist with the effects of the disability".
As an aid to definition, if ALL "medical" class dogs - (this the very issue at hand) - be defined as a "Guide Dog" or "Disability Aid Dog" -
Section 9 could then read -
"If the discriminator treats the aggrieved person less favourably because of the fact that the aggrieved person possesses, or is accompanied by a trained Dog for the purposed of;
(d) A Guide Dog to assist the aggrieved person who is partially or profoundly blind;
(e) A Dog trained to assist the aggrieved person in activities where hearing is required;
(f) A Disability Aid Dog trained to assist the aggrieved person with a medically recognised disability;
Whether or not it is the discriminator"s practice to treat less favourably any person who possesses, or is accompanied by a guide dog or Disability Aid Dog.
Section 9a - This could define the standards requisites for Disability Aid Dogs, and once in law, would be of immeasurable assistance in alleviating concerns as to public health and safety issues.
Both federal and state legislation, by the very impetus created by this amended legislation, could be of no other effect than favourable. The health and hygiene acts are largely empowered by councils, and here is where the most contention of definition comes from. The Australian Constitution, part three, "The House Of Representatives" - Chapter 5 - "The States" - Sect 109 - "Inconsistency Of Laws" - states "When a law of the states is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former will, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid".
If strict but workable international dog training standards are adopted to the DDA; the health, safety and hygiene concerns will be automatically addressed. This fact, if adopted, should be conveyed to ALL local and State Government instrumentality's, including the Local Councils.
As previously stated, the definition of "Disabled" should only be recognised under the DDA as Certified by a government recognised health professional, who is the only source of reliable and recognised medical opinion.
Vague or inconclusive clauses should be taken out of the DDA, Sect 48 as in: Vis- "(b) the discrimination is reasonably necessary to protect public health" - the wording "is reasonably necessary" - the very legislative definitions that promote divisive and at times unfair rulings from the Commission. Definitions should be looked at carefully across the whole of the act, assuring, as far as practicable, definitive definitions.
The provision in Sect 48 for infectious diseases is essential, and should be kept within the definitions of the act. In my opinion, there are no other "Medical Disease" exemptions necessary in Sect 48.
Precise definition needs to be included under 47 DDA for the purposes of the health, safety and hygiene of the public under section 4 and 9, specifying that any dog that is trained as specified under section 4 and 9 of the DDA, have, and annually should renew, a certificate of fitness of health for such defined "Trained Dogs" by a recognised and lawfully registered Veterinary Practitioner;
(a) That the trained dog as in sect 9 DDA is of sound health;
(b) That the trained dog as in sect 9 DDA is free of infectious disease, as can be reasonably ascertained by a qualified and registered Veterinary Practitioner, so certified on the annual health certificate for the "Aid Dog".
(d) All such trained dogs will be required to have successfully completed the appropriate international assessment pertinent to any "medically" certified dog, and shall be tested at that level - (Minimum Advanced Level Three as per sect 9a) - and attain a pass of such testing of at least 80 %.
There ought to be provision for additional legislation, say in DDA section 47, that explicitly and absolutely defines that it is unlawful - (Ref. Aust. Constitution - "state laws" - as already mentioned) - to denude or cause to be of no effect by any statutory authority, either state, federal or local, the provisions of the DDA - as in reference to the "Trained Animal / Dog Act of the DDA 1992 - sect 9 - 9a".
This will bring into being the rightful "Deed Of Quiet Enjoyment" of any disabled person and their "trained dog".
Assistance animals other than guide dogs and hearing assistance dogs -
Section 9a should also include as a compulsory requirement, that all Medically Certified dogs should be clearly identifiable whilst in public places by a suitably marked cape, dog coat or be in a harness. The disabled handler should, at all times, carry certification that indicates their disability and need for the dog, including a training certification of the dog, available to inspection in appropriate situations and places, but should never become a subject of harassment or improper treatment as can be applied to indirect discrimination or improper treatment of a disabled person. As I myself am disabled, I can probably with respect relay more "from the coal face' information than possibly a non disabled trainer or association.
In recognising that the DDA section 9 specifically states "trained to assist the aggrieved person to alleviate the effect of the disability" - all the discussion above should be adhered thereto.
What is a "Companion Dog"? The thrust of this somewhat baseless and thoroughly unfounded statement is borne out of the very ignorance - (Not Meant As Personal, But Purely Subjective comment) - that has caused the very situation we now find ourselves in, that has to be addressed Urgently! Any such "Specialised Definition" should be sought on advisement from the appropriate - and professionally recognised - authority; e.g. - Doctors, Dog Trainers, Veterinary Practitioners, and so on.
Let me put the framework of such classification before you, VIS:
These Standards Are Progressive and Should Be Compulsory Requirement.
These Standards are of general nature, and will need refining by co-operation of us all - these standards are extensively used in the UK , Europe and the USA.
Class One - Junior puppy, then standard obedience and Leash Training. Basic Aggression Testing Highly Recommended. This is the basic standard for a basically trained "pet", e.g. normal domestic use. Basic Certification can be sought, but of little use but for reasons of personal justification.
Class Two - Advanced obedience and stability leash training. Basic public access training, junior socialisation with other dogs. Standard aggression and behavioural testing compulsory if certification of training is sought.
Class Three - Possibly Used As Inferred In Precedent As - "A Companion Dog" for pure companionship, but having been well trained - (must be vaccinated and have medical certificate from vet for sound health etc.) Standard public access training - No Aggression In Public - Fully Socialised. Advanced aggression and behavioural assessment compulsory. If certification is sought, a full Class Three Assessment Must Be Followed - as laid down in international standards.
Medical Class Status
Class Three Advanced - Medical Entry Standard - Companion Dogs, Therapy Dogs, Basic Assist Dogs - (as in 3 ) plus: Public Access Stability - Advanced Home and Toilet Training (must not urinate or defecate in public places unless so designated in an appropriate setting) - Stability around other dogs and in traffic areas. A full international Medical Certification Assessment Compulsory. Standard Food Rejection. All Medical Classification dogs MUST be neutered or sterilized, and not be seen to be "gender active". Advanced behavioural assessment must be appended.
Class Four - Medical Assistance Dogs / Guide Dogs / Service Dogs. - Advanced Aggression and behavioural Testing - Further Stability Testing - Advanced Public Access Testing - Absolutely No Aggression with People or other Animals whilst in public - Further Harness Training Standard (Minimum 8 hours exposure) - Must Complete International Assessment Testing For Standard Class Four Assessment Testing - Medical Certificate From Vet and Neutered or Spayed Compulsory. Standard Food Rejection Testing. Dogs should be recognised as able to enter all areas allowed for the public, so can lawfully Enter Health Sensitive Areas/ Medical Areas as is allowed in legislation pertinent to any "Guide Dog".
Class Four Advanced - As in Class Four - PLUS - Current Annual Medical Clearance Compulsory - Further Advanced Public Access Testing - Must Complete International Assessment Testing For Class Four Advanced - Must Be Within Advanced Public Control - Advanced Harness Control - Advanced Food Attraction Control - TOTALLY Safe With Children and The Public. This is recognised as the highest level of instruction for all Medically Certified Dogs.
Class Five Instruction - SERVICE DOG LEVEL: This Level Is For Specialist Applications Only - E.G.: Dogs to assist with the blind, deaf, and acutely disabled - including wheelchair disabled assistance dogs. These standards are very sensitive to the pertinent organisation.
All these standards
As these standards are complex, let me explain. Medical dogs come in so many application levels, and training standards to reflect that application. I.E.:- A "Medical Companion" as an example, has been trained for an elderly gentlemen who is slowing in movement/motor skills, and needs a "companion" that can go with him anywhere, as this gentleman is somewhat disabled through old age, but we cannot discriminate against this. This elderly gent has an Australian Right to have his independence for as long as possible, so the companion dog is his independence!
Most international societies make the point - "Independence Through The Love Of A Dog" - some are called - "International Dogs For Independence" - "Loving Paws" - "Independence Dogs International" - the list is almost endless, yet here in our proud nation we cannot even grapple with the statement - "any animal trained to alleviate the effects of the disability"!
STANDARDS WILL BE COMPLEX - BUT SO ARE LAWS - BUT THEY ARE ESSENTIAL TO AVERT TOTAL ANARCHY!
I am always available for discussion or comment via e-mail at
aid-dogs@bigpond.com
07 41633001.
NOTE: Only genuine calls please, as I am ill and have posted my phone No. and email address for such contact. Genuine enquiries welcomed by anyone with an interest in this area within the hours - 7.30am to 8.00 pm / 7 days -
Disability Aid Dogs
Alex van Oeveren - founder / president.