To do otherwise would be to be making a prejudicial decision about the level of assistance provided by the animal to people with disabilities other that sight or hearing loss and or the level of training achieved by the animal.

PDCN believes that Section 9 of the DDA, as formulated has provided and should continue to provide opportunities for all people with disabilities to gain greater independence and injury prevention by using suitably selected and trained animals to alleviate the effects of their disability.

PDCN can see no reason to believe that dogs trained to assist people with physical disabilities are any greater or lessor an issue with respect to health and hygiene legislation.

Some of our members have successfully used their highly trained assistance dogs for a number of years in NSW, and have flown overseas, interstate and intrastate. This has given them the benefit of their dog's assistance 24 hours per day in public places, at least in part because of Section 9 of the Disability Discrimination Act.

These dogs have usually drawn admiration and praise for their conduct and assistance. Their owners have experienced substantially increased independence and safety by having their dogs at hand to provide additional assistance when needed to help their owners alleviate their disability. Without their assistance dogs, the owners could be at risk of injury or loss of independence.

1.1.2 If guide dogs for people who are blind can pose no health and hygiene threat, PDCN sees no reason why other assistance animals be any different.

Health and hygiene is surely a matter of the owner maintaining the animal's condition – it has nothing to do with the animal's training or the disability of the owner.

If some interests are suggesting that there are difficulties, it could be that more education needs to be carried out about the meaning of this section. Even after 40 years or so, people who are blind and use guide dogs are still finding it necessary to make complaints under the DDA.

This does not necessarily mean that there is a problem with the lack of clarity of the law. It is more likely to be that some people either are unaware of it or choose not to comply with the law. It would therefore not be unreasonable to expect similar difficulties for other assistance animals for other disabilities. Education and time will address these issues far better than removing people's rights.

PDCN believes that present laws and regulations appear to be managing the situation effectively without the practical complications and inflexibility of black letter law

PDCN understands it there have been no problems in the six years that DDA has been in operation that could not be solved by education/clarification and good will.

Discrimination should never be sanctioned to overcome perceived administrative difficulties with behaving in a non-discriminatory manner.

Clearly if a person can show that the assistance animal owned by any person with a disability is causing a health or hygiene risk, then effective action to reduce or eliminate the risk is appropriate. But we should never start by allowing a blanket discriminatory ban on some people with disabilities and their animals because some officials might find it tiresome to justify their actions.

2.1 PDCN supports the inclusion of section 9 of the DDA, which provides for the use of animals other than guide and hearing assistance dogs. This has allowed for people with disabilities to increase their safety and independence without fear of discrimination.

2.2 PDCN commends HREOC for helping to reduce potential confusion due to the newness of the DDA by providing an information line; clearer guidelines via "Frequently Asked Questions" and the publishing of summaries of decisions by the President and in reviewing decisions to decline complaints.

2.3 Naturally education about any laws is vital to eliminate confusion. The government, HREOC, assistance animal handlers, and business organisations have important educational roles to facilitate and clarify such knowledge throughout the business and broader communities.

3.1 PDCN believes not. PDCN believes that the repeal of section 9(1)(f) would involve substantial loss of our members' rights, who have come to depend for their injury prevention and independence, on their assistance animals. Section 9(1)(f) explicitly clarifies that people with disabilities, accompanied by assistance animals have rights under the DDA. This is taken to include all people with disabilities and that is how it should remain.

3.2 Relying on section 6 involves using a far more complex argument than relying on section 9. Citing section 9 can result in a would-be discriminator seeing the error of her/his ways and so solving the problem immediately. As justice delayed may be regarded as justice denied, it would be a travesty if a person with a disability needing an assistant dog had to rely on making a substantially delayed complaint under section 6 (indirect discrimination). Such a complaint is much more restrictive, conceptually more complex, and more difficult to prove, even in a formal complaint, let alone at the time of the event. Added to this, are the inequitable costs of time, scarce energy, stress, necessary legal expenses and uncertainty of outcome.

3.3 PDCN supports the comments made in the People with Disabilities' submission, particularly in regard to removing section 9(1)(f) and people with assistance animals other than guide and hearing dogs having to depend on the application of section 6 of the DDA

3.4 The benefits of S9(1)(f) have encouraged a number of people with disabilities to seek significantly more independence and injury prevention, by obtaining suitably trained assistance dogs. The assistance dogs' uses to them have been continually developed to help increase the independence their assistance animals offer.

Perhaps this injustice might be seen more clearly if another example is used. Would the Commission recommend that the DDA be amended to make it not unlawful for a person with quadriplegia to be required to leave her/his wheelchair outside if it were deemed that it might "take up too much room"?

In addition, if an animal has to be tied up outside a premises, it is at risk of being teased or stolen, and its assistance lost.

5.1 PDCN is aware that assistance dogs have been trained in Australia over several years. This occurred at a time when no provider organisations existed to auspice this training. The success of these dogs has led to relatively new Assistance Dog providing organisations. These organisations are using standards based on USA experience which hopefully will be adapted for the Australian environment.

PDCN is hopeful that whatever standards are developed by users and stakeholders will make provision for people to continue to privately train or have trained suitable dogs to a satisfactory standard.

It is also important that dogs which have been working satisfactorily for years are not excluded from any new arrangements.

It should be noted that the overseas experience with assistance animals has been a very positive one, with many people with severe physical disabilities achieving a level of independence way beyond what was thought possible.

The overseas experience, backed by Australia's experience, also shows that assistance animals behave at least as well as any guide dog or hearing dog.